folks obsessed with demographics,where do national conditions fit in your model?

[Matty]

For the folks who adhere to the belief that ethnic makeup and demographic trends are the single most important factor in predicting future political party power, how far back on the bus do objective, national conditions like unemployment rate, GDP growth rate, scandals, etc sit?

Because it is so hard for me to picture hillary clinton winning again in 2020 with an 11% UE rate, a recession, a legitimiate scandal, etc simply because the country is browner than it was in 2016.

When have national conditions ever NOT determined a national election, in any democratic nation?

[Virginiá]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/12/a-racially-diverse-america-could-make-the-economy-less-important-to-elections/

The gist is, minority voters are less swayed by the economy, and that means the GOP can't just bank on the next recession to drive them into the GOP's (non)loving embrace. They'll actually have to appeal to them on a deeper level. Hard to say with scandals right now. We'll have to wait on that one.

Too tired to go on usual rant(s)

[Matty]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/12/a-racially-diverse-america-could-make-the-economy-less-important-to-elections/

The gist is, minority voters are less swayed by the economy, and that means the GOP can't just bank on the next recession to drive them into the GOP's (non)loving embrace. They'll actually have to appeal to them on a deeper level. Hard to say with scandals right now. We'll have to wait on that one.

Too tired to go on usual rant(s)

Thanks for that article. Interesting read, but also a scary read. It's never healthy when a political party in a country (or region/state within a country) faces no competition. Look at the deep south before the 1970s, where the race everyone paid attention to was the democratic primary. Or look at kansas now. When politicians aren't threatened with the specter of losing, they push far into their idealistic worldview that is oftentimes not grounded in reality but rather in negative/dangerous outcomes. 

The whole point of democracy is to vote for people who deliver good things for the nation/region, and to kick out those who muck it all up.

And also Virginia, try to empathize with someone like me for a moment. Imagine that tomorrow 90 million evangelical protestants from outer space were dumped into America and immediately became eligible to vote. The GOP began dominating. Would you as a democrat be comfortable and willing to give up support for things like gay marriage, abortion rights, etc just to win elections.

I'm not saying that you are wrong that more appeal needs to happen at this point, but as someone who grew up in a farm area dominated with libertarian tendencies and a tremendous distrust of government, I'd hope you understand why I am so uneasy about seeing a GOP that is much more left-wing on economic issues and what not.

Principles matter.

[Matty]

marty, the demise of the GOP is way overblown. They could have won this year (and might still win) had they nominated a better candidate.

I disagree. USA is going through what California went through 20 years ago and is still going through. California was a GOP state and a heavily white state as late as 1986. Then it began to tighten because the first immigrants started coming in from the far east and from mexico. The electoral disaster commenced in the 90s and it's been downhill ever since. The GOP gets 40% in good, wave years in california.

Here's the remarkable- the rate of white decline in population  in the USA is happening FASTER than it happened in california.

[Slander and/or Libel]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/12/a-racially-diverse-america-could-make-the-economy-less-important-to-elections/

The gist is, minority voters are less swayed by the economy, and that means the GOP can't just bank on the next recession to drive them into the GOP's (non)loving embrace. They'll actually have to appeal to them on a deeper level. Hard to say with scandals right now. We'll have to wait on that one.

Too tired to go on usual rant(s)

That article is very interesting, but it also makes me wonder whether white people, being disproportionately Republican, are disproportionately likely to say that the economy is getting worse under a Democrat, and whether that is biasing things.

[Redban]

Non-whites have been voting Democrat consistently for a long time, regardless of the economy.

In 1980, for example, the economy was almost as bad as it is today, yet Blacks and Hispanics still overwhelmingly supported incumbent Jimmy Carter over Ronald Reagan. Four years later, the economy improved, and Reagan ran on the backdrop of prosperity (i.e. "It's morning in America"). Nonetheless, Blacks and Hispanics overwhelmingly favored the challenger Walter Mondale over the incumbent Ronald Reagan.

If economics carried the day, then Reagan would have won non-whites, just as he won whites. Instead, he lost them by roughly the same margin as McCain did. Hence, national conditions don't determine the voting patterns of non-whites.

1980:

Blacks -- 83% Carter vs 14% Reagan
Hispanic -- 56% Carter vs 37% Reagan

1984:

Blacks -- 91% Mondale vs 9% Reagan
Hispanic - 66% Mondale vs 34% Reagan

[OSR stands with Israel]

marty, the demise of the GOP is way overblown. They could would have won this year (and might still win) had they nominated a better candidate.

FTFY

[hopper]

marty, the demise of the GOP is way overblown. They could have won this year (and might still win) had they nominated a better candidate.

I disagree. USA is going through what California went through 20 years ago and is still going through. California was a GOP state and a heavily white state as late as 1986. Then it began to tighten because the first immigrants started coming in from the far east and from mexico. The electoral disaster commenced in the 90s and it's been downhill ever since. The GOP gets 40% in good, wave years in california.

Here's the remarkable- the rate of white decline in population  in the USA is happening FASTER than it happened in california.

No your sort of wrong about California. First off it was a pro-gun control and pro-choice state even in th 80's. The Hispanic Population in California is like 39% of the population right now and the US Average is like 18% so no the White Population in California(crica 1980-2010) is not going down as fast as the US Population as whole currently.

[hopper]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/12/a-racially-diverse-america-could-make-the-economy-less-important-to-elections/

The gist is, minority voters are less swayed by the economy, and that means the GOP can't just bank on the next recession to drive them into the GOP's (non)loving embrace. They'll actually have to appeal to them on a deeper level. Hard to say with scandals right now. We'll have to wait on that one.

Too tired to go on usual rant(s)

That article is very interesting, but it also makes me wonder whether white people, being disproportionately Republican, are disproportionately likely to say that the economy is getting worse under a Democrat, and whether that is biasing things.

White People liked the economy in the 90's under Bill Clinton(a Democrat.)

[Virginiá]

And also Virginia, try to empathize with someone like me for a moment. Imagine that tomorrow 90 million evangelical protestants from outer space were dumped into America and immediately became eligible to vote. The GOP began dominating. Would you as a democrat be comfortable and willing to give up support for things like gay marriage, abortion rights, etc just to win elections.

I fully understand and I do emphasize. I'd be quite bitter for some time if what you described happened.

At the same time, my parents were immigrants, so I also don't see things the same way as Republicans in regards to minority voter growth. These immigrants are here to stay, and deporting them all is a crazy idea. I wouldn't give up those issues, no. Both of what you just said apply directly to me, and are not just issues I want justice for despite not actually being affected.

marty, the demise of the GOP is way overblown. They could have won this year (and might still win) had they nominated a better candidate.

It is probably overblown right now. Assumptions that the GOP will become some rump party are rooted in the idea that the GOP won't change and adapt, which honestly is hard to fault for people thinking given what we are seeing so far. I'm sure they'll find a way, but it could take a while. However, thinking about the math, if minorities continue to grow as roughly 2% more of the electorate every 4 years, and Republicans continue to get <20% of the non-white vote every presidential election, then you essentially have 1.8% at least of voters becoming reliably Democratic, leaving the GOP less to work with. It cannot be denied how damaging this is long-term. By 2024 the GOP will have to make up for at least 3.6% of lost voters relative to this cycle. Given the current state of the GOP, it's really hard to see (right now) how they can keep up with that. They are not bringing in enough new voters.

[LLR]

Non-whites have been voting Democrat consistently for a long time, regardless of the economy.

In 1980, for example, the economy was almost as bad as it is today, yet Blacks and Hispanics still overwhelmingly supported incumbent Jimmy Carter over Ronald Reagan. Four years later, the economy improved, and Reagan ran on the backdrop of prosperity (i.e. "It's morning in America"). Nonetheless, Blacks and Hispanics overwhelmingly favored the challenger Walter Mondale over the incumbent Ronald Reagan.

If economics carried the day, then Reagan would have won non-whites, just as he won whites. Instead, he lost them by roughly the same margin as McCain did. Hence, national conditions don't determine the voting patterns of non-whites.

1980:

Blacks -- 83% Carter vs 14% Reagan
Hispanic -- 56% Carter vs 37% Reagan

1984:

Blacks -- 91% Mondale vs 9% Reagan
Hispanic - 66% Mondale vs 34% Reagan

In what world is the economy bad?

[Redban]

Non-whites have been voting Democrat consistently for a long time, regardless of the economy.

In 1980, for example, the economy was almost as bad as it is today, yet Blacks and Hispanics still overwhelmingly supported incumbent Jimmy Carter over Ronald Reagan. Four years later, the economy improved, and Reagan ran on the backdrop of prosperity (i.e. "It's morning in America"). Nonetheless, Blacks and Hispanics overwhelmingly favored the challenger Walter Mondale over the incumbent Ronald Reagan.

If economics carried the day, then Reagan would have won non-whites, just as he won whites. Instead, he lost them by roughly the same margin as McCain did. Hence, national conditions don't determine the voting patterns of non-whites.

1980:

Blacks -- 83% Carter vs 14% Reagan
Hispanic -- 56% Carter vs 37% Reagan

1984:

Blacks -- 91% Mondale vs 9% Reagan
Hispanic - 66% Mondale vs 34% Reagan

In what world is the economy bad?

Record-low labor force participation rate, 1.2% GDP growth, real per capita income is still below 2007 levels, underemployment rate still 1% over pre-recession rates, real income levels have not increased in 20 years (despite inflation & rising costs of goods), wages have stagnated, a high amount of Americans on food stamps, etc.

[hopper]

The most glaring statistic of the article was that Hispanics split their vote between Obama and Romney on the "if the economy was getting worse?" question. I guess half of Hispanics thought Obama did a good job with the economy or all he could gave done to make the economy better and the other half didn't he think did a good enough job or all he could have done to make the economy better than it was in 2008.