Is the Republican party doomed on presidential level?

[TarHeelDem]

Can't wait for the GOP and punditry meltdown when Hillary is reelected.

[hopper]

If only, nah...play the cards right, and they could beat Clinton, they've already got the fake scandal thing going on which seems to work too well as is.

And if Hillary does survive and win, she'll probably get booted in 2020

Well if the economy is like it was in 1980 or 2008 she will get booted. If the economy is like it was in 1991 or 2012 nah probably not.

[pbrower2a]

Not if it changes its agenda after some smashing defeats. That is what the Democrats did in 1976 and 1992, and what Republicans did in 1952. 

Parties start seeking new coalitions after some severe losses.

[RINO Tom]

Not if it changes its agenda after some smashing defeats. That is what the Democrats did in 1976 and 1992, and what Republicans did in 1952. 

Parties start seeking new coalitions after some severe losses.

This is all that ever needs to be typed in these threads.  The last time a political party died it was because of SLAVERY, and we've had the same two since then.  The Dems survived being associated with the Confederacy, the GOP survived the Great Depression, these two aren't going anywhere.

[Young Conservative]

Of course not. Even if Democrats influx of hispanic immigrants helps them for the first few elections, the second generation of hispanic immigrants will definitely not be as kind to the Democrats.

Hispanics grow republican and are more likely to identify as white with each succeeding generation their lineage is in the US. If we shut the border, the Democrats will quickly find themselves running out of voters in the future. Their strategy forgot about the social conservativeness and hard work ethic of hispanics. naturally they'd be conservative voters if they and their parents were born in the US

[pbrower2a]

Of course not. Even if Democrats influx of hispanic immigrants helps them for the first few elections, the second generation of hispanic immigrants will definitely not be as kind to the Democrats.

Hispanics grow republican and are more likely to identify as white with each succeeding generation their lineage is in the US. If we shut the border, the Democrats will quickly find themselves running out of voters in the future. Their strategy forgot about the social conservativeness and hard work ethic of hispanics. naturally they'd be conservative voters if they and their parents were born in the US

Hispanics are going to be whiter as they assimilate more white Anglos into their gene pool. Yes, it can work that way. Which way will the children identify themselves?   

The Republican Party is also infamous among many for demanding, but only slightly rewarding, the work ethic. That is not a good way to attract people with a communitarian ethic

Hispanics also have much social cohesion, as shown during a Chicago heat wave that Hispanics got through better. Nothing physical; they are still statistically poor. But they looked out for each other, which in the Chicago area distinguishes them from whites and blacks. People who look out for each other are more likely to be liberal in their politics.

Social conservatism does not lead to political conservatism.       

[Virginiá]

Never ceases to amuse me how some conservatives think liberalism/being a Democrat is just some sort of phase or fad for people, and that when they "wise up" or grow older, they will, what, see the light and start voting Republican? Give me a break. Some of the most grandiose crap I've ever heard. As if being liberal or voting Democratic is just the result of being stupid or misguided.

Maybe others just can't buy into the Republican idea because they see its flaws. As the saying goes, "This country has socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor". Maybe that's not what Republican voters think, but the people they elect to serve in Washington are hardly looking out for them, and the ones that actually are end up towing the party line and their intentions end up being meaningless anyway. If the Republican establishment was actually listening to their voters, we wouldn't have the Trump phenomenon.

As for the idea that people get more conservative and would thus vote Republican (or whatever party represents conservatives) as they age, that is a myth and frankly there is more data to suggest that on average most people keep their party allegiances throughout their life as long as the party continues adheres to core values

[Ebsy]

What do those that think Latino voters will become more Republican have to say about second and third generation Cubans, who are in fact becoming more Democratic?

[pbrower2a]

Never ceases to amuse me how some conservatives think liberalism/being a Democrat is just some sort of phase or fad for people, and that when they "wise up" or grow older, they will, what, see the light and start voting Republican? Give me a break. Some of the most grandiose crap I've ever heard. As if being liberal or voting Democratic is just the result of being stupid or misguided.

Have these people ever thought of the concept of 'enlightened self-interest'? As people get increasingly advanced in corporate bureaucracies in which one gets more of a stake in low taxes, minimal public services, cheap labor, and lax regulation as one advances one might become more 'conservative' with time. Except that people don't usually get to enjoy such a trajectory in life.

What if one is a government employee, in which case your career depends upon the ability of some bailiwick to collect taxes? What if one wants high-quality education for your children so that they have a chance? What if one is a member of an ethnic group that often gets the shaft? Add to this -- what if the 'conservative' ideology becomes incompatible with one's culture or economic interests?   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This time the GOP Establishment has fared badly in polls. It has cultivated the votes of the Religious Right with promises of school prayer, an abortion ban, and outlawry of homosexuality in return for getting votes for the (GOP) Establishment dream of pure plutocracy. Liberals have been able to block the right-wing side of the culture wars. Now the bill comes due.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. People can change core values from early adulthood by marrying out of their ethnic group (if white) or undergoing a religious conversion...  but the most likely major change in values that anyone can have is typically in one's twenties when one gets disillusioned with what one was taught has proved impossible, absurd, or unworkable. 

[RINO Tom]

I don't have the answers, but history says something will change.  I mean sh*t, there are primary source documents from the early 20th Century of Republicans worrying about "demographic change" because first generation European immigrants were almost always loyal Democrats.  Substitute "English/WASP" with "White" and "European" with "Latino," and the GOP finds itself in the same (albeit slightly worse) spot.  The GOP had enough power at that time to halt immigration in the 1920s; will they do the same this time?  I highly doubt it, as much more of it is illegal now, so the GOP will be forced to adapt and win some of those votes or they'll never win again.  I still maintain that toning down the hardline cultural stuff and appealing to affluent minorities is probably the best longterm strategy, but I'm not at all certain of that.

[MM876]

Yes and no:

I think the trend is towards Democrats for this election. Looking at history, when a horrendously unpopular president messes up the country the opposition party usually gets a minimum of 12 years in power. It happened with Woodrow Wilson after all the unpopular measures he took regarding WWI and the Treaty of Versailles, and then the Republicans held control for 3 terms. Then, on the tail end of that Hoover was massively unpopular and so FDR won in a landslide. Part of this could be considered a part of FDR's cousin's popularity, but still I think the trend holds. As part of the New Deal and FDR's personal popularity (albeit with the idea not changing presidents during wartime being a factor), the Democratic Party kept its steak for a full five terms. The next one would be Jimmy Carter, with Reagan obviously winning in landslides both times and Bush winning handily in 1988.

I think that George W. Bush was the most recent example of this. As one of the most unpopular presidents of the modern era, I think that the trend would be for the Democrats to get at least one more term, if not two. The issue in this is if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination this year; she will still have very low favorability ratings and is not exactly inevitable, despite what some people say.

Typically those who are the second presidents (Hoover, Truman, H.W. Bush) to succeed an unpopular president are carrying on the positions and acting as an additional term to someone who has roaring, unparalleled popularity.

Obama is okay, I would personally even say that he's been good, but his popularity cannot even be compared to that of Coolidge, FDR, or Reagan. So Hillary's chances as the nominee are lessened significantly just by that.

To answer your question: quite possibly, but the Democratic nominee--whether it's Hillary or Bernie--is not guaranteed to coast to victory that easily. I would say that 2016 is a legitimate challenge for the presidency, but if this test fails the Republican party is crippled presidentially until it reforms.

After all the horrendous presidents the opposition lost power to a reformed version of the party it originally overtook. Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover were uber-fiscal conservatives and business conservatives compared to trust-busting Taft. FDR believed in expanding government and progressivism in a significant reformation movement. Clinton came out with third-way or moderate Democrats--neoliberalism.

TLDR: 2016 is a test, but if the Republicans lose this election I think they are doomed presidentially until they make some serious reforms.

[pbrower2a]

Every election is different. The mediocre approval ratings of Barack Obama could relate to race, something irrelevant in 2016.  With the sudden fade of Ben Carson, we can be certain that the 45th President of the United States will be white.

Americans voted for President Obama despite him being black. That his approval ratings have typically been in the high 40s from after the honeymoon is as good as one can expect today. This is with a stock-market boom and a general evasion of military disasters.

The 2016 election is the first election following a President who looks nothing like any prior President. Republicans still loathe the Obama agenda. For Democrats, what they dislike about the Obama Presidency is so many unfulfilled promises... but those unfulfilled promises reflect the unwillingness of a Republican Congress to bend on anything.

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are not running from the Obama agenda; they want to fully achieve it. They do so with comparative ease if the Democrats win back both Houses of Congress.       

[pbrower2a]

When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues despite the vastly-different personal histories. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both respect legal precedents more than they trust legislation and the transitory will of the people in states. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress. To compare ISIS to Fidel Castro is completely unfair to Fidel Castro, a gentleman by contrast to ISIS.

The definitive moderate Republican may have been Dwight Eisenhower, and I have heard plenty of Democrats praise the Eisenhower Presidency. He went along with Supreme Court rulings that outlawed segregationist practices, stayed clear of the McCarthy bandwagon, and let McCarthy implode.

Here are two overlays of elections to suggest how political loyalties can change.  To be sure, any victor of a Presidential election is likely to have much of an overlay with any winner of Presidential landslides, but Barack Obama better fits an Eisenhower win (Ike won Massachusetts and Minnesota twice, states (Massachusetts) that Nixon lost in his 49-state landslide and that (Minnesota) Reagan lost in his 49-state landslide, or the even more-impressive FDR landslide of 1936 (Maine and Vermont were never in doubt for Obama)

Take the Eisenhower wins of 1952 and 1956, and you see Obama winning practically the same states except Tennessee (which used to be the most liberal of Southern states), Mormon country, and the states that depend more upon ranching than upon farming for their agriculture. (The farm-ranch divide reflects the difference between the realities of rancher-hand relationship and the farmer-farmhand relationship. Ranchers must supply basic needs for ranch-hands; a dairy farm operates much like a factory with dairy workers working much like assembly-line workers). In 2008 Barack Obama won only one state that Eisenhower did not win twice; in 2012 President Obama got re-elected without winning a state that Ike did not win twice.   

 
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2008 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red.


Now, Carter vs. Obama:

If anyone has any doubt that the Presidential Election of 1976 is ancient history for all practical purposes:

Carter 1976, Obama 2008/2012   

Carter 1976, Obama twice  red
Carter 1976, Obama once pink
Carter 1976, Obama never yellow
Ford 1976, Obama twice white
Ford 1976, Obama once light blue
Ford 1976, Obama never blue

....As you can see, Carter lost a raft of states (among them California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, and Maine) that Democratic nominees for President have not lost after 1988, and some states (Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico) that Democrats have not LOST in Presidential wins. On the other side, Carter was the last Democrat to win Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, or Texas.

I see little chance of Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders winning any state that Eisenhower did not win twice. 

[Seneca]

What do those that think Latino voters will become more Republican have to say about second and third generation Cubans, who are in fact becoming more Democratic?

First generation Cuban exiles were hyper-conservative bourgeois exiles. Their kids and grand-kids are middle class Americans (some have even fallen farther down the economic ladder) who, in addition to no longer voting like an exiled ruling class, have very different views towards Cuba. 2nd and 3rd Generation exile kids have mixed with more recent arrivals from Cuba, refugees from the Mariel boatlift crisis and the special period who are more ethnically diverse and have a much more ambivalent view of Cuba, suggesting more left-leaning politics than the original exile generation. Younger Cuban-Americans are fully in favor of the embargo lifting so they can visit their ancestral homeland, and don't give a sh**t about the Castros. This puts them at odds with their elders; their different formative experiences and world view naturally pushes them to the left in other areas.

Mexican-Americans might be expected to follow a different trajectory. Many Mexican-Americans own their own businesses, be that landscaping, restaurants, or so on, placing them within that right-leaning petit-bourgeois class. Additionally, integration into Anglo-society confers with it all kinds of benefits; to be white in our caste society is to be on top. So Mexican-Americans have a vested interest in assimilating. Note how many second and third children of Mexican parents don't ever become fluent in Spanish. Conforming politically to their Anglo neighbors is a natural next step in the process of claiming white identity. The Cuban exiles and their kids were white and are by and large viewed as whites by American society, meaning they don't have to assimilate to anglo-culture to obtain a lot of the privileges that come with being white.

[hopper]

Of course not. Even if Democrats influx of hispanic immigrants helps them for the first few elections, the second generation of hispanic immigrants will definitely not be as kind to the Democrats.

Hispanics grow republican and are more likely to identify as white with each succeeding generation their lineage is in the US. If we shut the border, the Democrats will quickly find themselves running out of voters in the future. Their strategy forgot about the social conservativeness and hard work ethic of hispanics. naturally they'd be conservative voters if they and their parents were born in the US

No Obama would have still won in 2012 even with zero Latino's or even Asians voting because of the Black Vote in Ohio and Virginia. Obama would have won the Electoral College but lost the Popular Vote to Romney in that scenario.

Social Conservativeness-Most Generation Y Hispanics are Moderate-Liberal on Social Issues like Generation Y Whites and Asians. Blacks are still socially conservative but still a Solid Solid D group.

[hopper]

I don't have the answers, but history says something will change.  I mean sh*t, there are primary source documents from the early 20th Century of Republicans worrying about "demographic change" because first generation European immigrants were almost always loyal Democrats.  Substitute "English/WASP" with "White" and "European" with "Latino," and the GOP finds itself in the same (albeit slightly worse) spot.  The GOP had enough power at that time to halt immigration in the 1920s; will they do the same this time?  I highly doubt it, as much more of it is illegal now, so the GOP will be forced to adapt and win some of those votes or they'll never win again.  I still maintain that toning down the hardline cultural stuff and appealing to affluent minorities is probably the best longterm strategy, but I'm not at all certain of that.

Well the GOP can do that in State and Congressional Races but in Presidential Races its much harder it seems mostly thanks to Trump this time around.