Are the Republicans eventually in trouble down the road?

[The Arizonan]

Say what you will about the 2016 election season. It might've been a Republican year, but I'd say it was probably a fluke.

The Republicans won the White House and retained control of both houses of Congress. Plus, they get to name Justice Scalia's replacement and possibly Justice Ginsburg's replacement.

They should enjoy the party while it lasts because the changing demographics are not exactly in their favor and because they have a habit of alienating just about every key group in politics.

So, are the Republicans eventually screwed?

[Meclazine for Israel]

Republicans seem to be adapting quite well at the moment.

Changing demographics are one thing, but listening to the people and feeling the real issues is what led to Donalds success.

If the Democrats focus on core issues in 2020, then they will be a better chance of getting elected.

[Virginiá]

Republicans are overly dependent on older voters and have essentially written off the Millennial generation for years, and probably completely with 4 years of Trump. 18-29 is a critical time in a person's life, where many views on the world, various issues and political parties are developed and hardened. The way the GOP has reacted to a changing America and how Millennials accept that is almost as if they implemented a strategy specifically to alienate future generations of voters post-Reagan.

Between the rapid growth of racial minorities, the decline of religion and Millennials eating up more and more of the electorate, Republicans should, imo, expect to see significant electoral problems in the early-mid 2020s, when Millennials come to make up at least half of actual voters.

It's hard to see how it will all play out, but Republicans shouldn't think that unified control and big downballot success right now means they have solid footing going into the future. Democrats probably thought the same in 1992/2008, and yet everything changed 2 years later.

[DrScholl]

Yes, but they think that they have a permanent majority right now which even further reinforces the idea that they think they don't need to change.

[Mr. Morden]

It's hard to see how it will all play out, but Republicans shouldn't think that unified control and big downballot success right now means they have solid footing going into the future. Democrats probably thought the same in 1992/2008, and yet everything changed 2 years later.

But that's a much more mild statement than what you seemed to be hinting at in the rest of your post.

Yes, any electoral victory is fragile.  It can be reversed quickly, and a victory today doesn't preclude a defeat tomorrow.

But any reasonably informed political observer knows that.  The more provocative question, which is I think what the thread is supposed to be about, is whether the next reversal of fortunes won't be just another cycle in the back-and-forth of American politics, but a precursor to the Dems having some kind of growing structural advantage due to demographic changes.

That is, is it just that the Republicans shouldn't think that they "have solid footing going into the future" based on their current victory, because no victory indicates "solid footing"?  Or is it that it's the Dems who have solid footing going into the future, and the '16 presidential election was just a hiccup?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I think the Republicans are likely in trouble down the road, but its not guaranteed. A great deal will depend on how (and how effectively) Trump governs.

If he's a disaster, or even if he's in charge while disaster happens, they're toast. They'll have alienated large swathes of voters AND discredited themselves.

If he's effective in the short term, they could be in good shape. Right now, I think President Pussygrabber is going to go on a looting spree like a corporate raider. He'll do immense long-term damage in return for short-term returns for himself and his buddies. He'll try to buy off the voters (shareholders) in the short term, by doing things like cutting taxes and government handouts (in acceptable to Republicans ways) partly by running up the debt, but he'll probably come up with non-debt related schemes, too. Probably lots of privatization coming down the pipe.

The plan will probably be to keep the whole thing moving along at high speed, telling everyone how awesome it is, then bailing out in 4 or 8 years to let the Dems take the wheel right before it crashes. (Which is basically what Dubya tried and failed to do.) IF they can pull it off, the public is obviously dumb enough to buy it.

Probably the biggest threat to such a plan is that Pussygrabber and his cohorts really are clueless. A real crisis in the next year and a half will probably discredit him and the GOP hangers on, too. If I had to bet, that's how I'd go: that Trump ends up being a Hoover for this century.

Real failure by them now will likely lead to a generation out of power down the road. And not that far down the road, either.

[Person Man]

Republicans are overly dependent on older voters and have essentially written off the Millennial generation for years, and probably completely with 4 years of Trump. 18-29 is a critical time in a person's life, where many views on the world, various issues and political parties are developed and hardened. The way the GOP has reacted to a changing America and how Millennials accept that is almost as if they implemented a strategy specifically to alienate future generations of voters post-Reagan.

Between the rapid growth of racial minorities, the decline of religion and Millennials eating up more and more of the electorate, Republicans should, imo, expect to see significant electoral problems in the early-mid 2020s, when Millennials come to make up at least half of actual voters.

It's hard to see how it will all play out, but Republicans shouldn't think that unified control and big downballot success right now means they have solid footing going into the future. Democrats probably thought the same in 1992/2008, and yet everything changed 2 years later.

And the new batch of kids seem to be even more Democratic. However, even a very conservative R attracted enough moderate minorities this time to build a big enough tent. Democrats seem to just seem to ne having a hard time finding people.

Ultimately, the question is whether the Democratic Party base is just not set up in a way to attract the most graceful people (maybe Republicans  do well with relatively fewer skills because of the Gift of Gab and that helps them win elections?) and if so, can they overcome the recruitment and social skills deficit?

This is kind of a more thought out "Last guts finish last" thought expirement.

[Mercenary]

This win and the indications of how they will govern will certainly make the party weaker in the future.
They would have been much better off losing and following the advice of that 2012 autopsy.

[Virginiá]

But that's a much more mild statement than what you seemed to be hinting at in the rest of your post.

What I was trying to say was that I don't know exactly where and when Republicans will flameout, or how long the process will be. What I do believe is that diverging so far from the interests of future generations while also alienating them far beyond what a typical disagreement on various policy would entail is going to be devastating to Republicans in the future. The numbers Republican post with minorities and young people in general are absolutely horrid, and in a future where each generation is more and more diverse, it presents a huge issue for them. I mean, as I alluded to before, it's not even just diversification by a substantial difference of opinion on many issues that Millennials care deeply about.

But any reasonably informed political observer knows that.  The more provocative question, which is I think what the thread is supposed to be about, is whether the next reversal of fortunes won't be just another cycle in the back-and-forth of American politics, but a precursor to the Dems having some kind of growing structural advantage due to demographic changes.

Well when I say "significant electoral problems," I mainly mean that the GOP is going to increasingly find itself out-voted in many regions when Millennials age more and begin voting more regularly, as is usual with age<>voting. I don't believe they will have any substantial redistricting advantage this round, either. Not with such an incumbent in the WH that will, imo, inevitably drag their party down quite a bit. I could be wrong on that, but I don't think I am.

An issue I do see is that Democrats do not seem to have prospects for an enduring Senate majority. The coalition of states Democrats can compete in do not give me hope, and I see no trends that could deliver such in my timeframe. I do think Democrats could maintain a small Senate majority for years, but it seems it would be based more on good timing and luck, and not by sheer power of favorable states.

The House is also tricky, and I'd like to see how Trump plays out and how redistricting goes. America is still urbanizing though, and a party heavily reliant on rural/exurban and to a degree, suburban voters is not in the best situation. I don't have the voting habits by age for individual districts, but dollars to doughnuts that it is dispersed enough to flip the House for an extended period of time, whenever those voters grow up and what appears to be equally Democratic voters take their spot in the younger age group.

The presidency I believe is just getting harder for Republicans to pull off, and would be a main advantage for Democrats for possibly however long it takes Republicans to make large inroads with minorities and young people, with every 4 years being more and more difficult. With the right candidates, I really would not be surprised if Democrats went on a 3-cycle streak in 2020+

That is, is it just that the Republicans shouldn't think that they "have solid footing going into the future" based on their current victory, because no victory indicates "solid footing"?  Or is it that it's the Dems who have solid footing going into the future, and the '16 presidential election was just a hiccup?

Long-term, I think Democrats have a solid future and the GOP is on the rocks. Given the trends among the 18-24 age group, I'm coming to see 2016 as more of a Carter 2.0 situation. The GOP is clearly on the wrong side of America's rising generations, and they can't seem to fully appreciate that because older voters keep delivering them wins.

When you have another decade's worth of older voters die off, bringing down a huge number of the GOP's most reliable voters and not nearly enough new voters to replace them, you rapidly run into a problem that may have not been that apparent just years beforehand.

I think Democrats will maintain a presidential advantage, and eventually establish a more reliable majority, even if small, in the House, whose timing depends on what transpires over the next 4-5 years.

[Orser67]

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump wins re-election in 2020, but yeah I think that Republicans are in trouble.  Just look at the exit polls: Clinton won 18-29 at a 55-37 proportion, and 30-44 at 50-42. Obviously Republicans have a chance at peeling off these voters (or attracting new ones) as they get older, but Republicans can't take for granted that people will vote Republican as they get older. This map should definitely concern Republicans.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Thr assumption that rising Hispanic vote makes them doomed in the long run seems as delusional as claiming the rising Irish population back in the day would always vote lockstep together.

Similarly, the Democrats assumption that they have a stranglehold over young people seems very suspect in light of the data. And I really find the triumhalism of "just wait till those rotten old people DIE" pretty morbid tbh

[ApatheticAustrian]

the "republicans are d00med" cause of hispanics-strategy is 1) restrained by the EC and more importantly 2) trying to push the republican party to moderate its positions.

if the current position of the GOP become toxic on a bigger scale, this is going to balance itself out pretty soon.

[Figueira]

Yes, both parties will go through rough spots at various points in the future.

[andrew_c]

If they don't make an effort to appeal to younger voters and non-white voters, then yes, they will be in trouble.

[Virginiá]

Thr assumption that rising Hispanic vote makes them doomed in the long run seems as delusional as claiming the rising Irish population back in the day would always vote lockstep together.

Texas, Florida and Arizona, combined with the other states already nearly out of reach will eventually create even bigger headaches. It's not like Hispanic Texans are far more Republican-leaning at the presidential level, they were only a little more Republican than the national average in both 2008 and 2016 (no data for 2012 afaik). Honestly, the voting patterns of 18-29 & 30-39 in TX ought to worry Republicans in the long-term view. Their margins are getting worse as time goes on and it's creeping up through the older age groups. Further, it's not just Hispanic voter growth alone.

Personally if Hispanics & African Americans hadn't been voting so consistently and strongly Democratic for literally generations, I wouldn't have as much faith in it, but here we have a GOP that is completely tanking in meaningful minority outreach and looks set to get nowhere for even longer now, all while non-white population growth is exploding. One would have to be crazy to think this is just some trivial issue for Republicans.

Similarly, the Democrats assumption that they have a stranglehold over young people seems very suspect in light of the data. And I really find the triumhalism of "just wait till those rotten old people DIE" pretty morbid tbh

But what data? Clinton's reduced margins compared to Obama 2012? I mean if we go by that, it's worth noting that Trump didn't really do any better than Romney. Clinton was an absolutely awful fit for young voters, and tbh it's surprising that she did not only as well as she did, but that Trump didn't do any better despite her losses. I don't really expect Democrats to hold on to young people forever, but at the same time, Republicans won't start evening out the score again until they find genuine ways to appeal to them through policy and messaging. It's either that or just hold out until a new generation comes about that actually buys their crap.

What I'm seeing is that Republicans are continuing to drive away even the youngest voters, those who weren't old enough to vote in 2012 or chose not to. They are still completely out of touch regarding the people who will continue making up more and more of America's electorate.

As for old people dying & changing American politics, well, I certainly don't celebrate it or anything. I'm just theorizing about what the their passing means for the future of each party. It is inevitable, after all.

[Deblano]

Both parties are in utter turmoil IMO.

The Republicans have had the Trumpists launch a coup and create a tense, uneasy peace.

The Democrats are struggling to find a new direction and new leadership, and risk becoming as dysfunctional as the UK Labour Party.

We are entering a new party system and transitioning from the one that has existed since the late 1960s.

[DC Al Fine]

Thr assumption that rising Hispanic vote makes them doomed in the long run seems as delusional as claiming the rising Irish population back in the day would always vote lockstep together.

Someone ought to coin a term for this phenomenon. People will assimilate, and parties in a two party system more than anything want to win, so the GOP will figure something out eventually. Short term, they're still in trouble though.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Both parties are in utter turmoil IMO.

The Republicans have had the Trumpists launch a coup and create a tense, uneasy peace.

The Democrats are struggling to find a new direction and new leadership, and risk becoming as dysfunctional as the UK Labour Party.

We are entering a new party system and transitioning from the one that has existed since the late 1960s.

History will show 2016 as a significant shift in the political malaise.

You are probably on the money.

[The_Doctor]

Demographics is not destiny. A third of minorities voted Trump. That is enough to get the GOP through 2028.

The Democrats need to be the party of viable economic solutions for the minority bloc to reach 80-90% Democratic and a bloc of white voters to abandon the GOP. I think the Democrats get there of course, but I think that relying on demography and voters to vote based on race and age is a stupid idea.

There is a reason Trump reached enough voters to win and enough abandoned Clinton. Let's not forget voters are malleable human beings who often change their opinion and don't like to be taken for granted. That's the whole point of a democracy.

[Beet]

Demographics is not destiny. A third of minorities voted Trump. That is enough to get the GOP through 2028.

This.

The demographics is destiny argument, besides being wrong, is morally repugnant. It implies satisfaction with a situation in which political cleavages break down along ethnic, as opposed to ideological lines. The less one's ethnicity tells you about which party you will vote for, the more post-racial we will truly become.

[ApatheticAustrian]

getting one third of minority votes (which could easily be wrong since the exit polls overstated trump's PV marge by 3 to 4 points in general) is worse if those minorities make up 35% points of the electorate.

not saying anything about fate but the radicalized GOP of the last years should be forced to moderate a few positions in a not so far-away future.

[longtimelurker]

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump wins re-election in 2020, but yeah I think that Republicans are in trouble.  Just look at the exit polls: Clinton won 18-29 at a 55-37 proportion, and 30-44 at 50-42. Obviously Republicans have a chance at peeling off these voters (or attracting new ones) as they get older, but Republicans can't take for granted that people will vote Republican as they get older. This map should definitely concern Republicans.

A lot of these Dem-voting young voters will make their way to blue states by the time they're 40, or younger.  Leaving the electoral map pretty much the same as it is now.

[Person Man]

Both parties are in utter turmoil IMO.

The Republicans have had the Trumpists launch a coup and create a tense, uneasy peace.

The Democrats are struggling to find a new direction and new leadership, and risk becoming as dysfunctional as the UK Labour Party.

We are entering a new party system and transitioning from the one that has existed since the late 1960s.

History will show 2016 as a significant shift in the political malaise.

You are probably on the money.

I can see a situation where the GOP is radicalized and the Democrats are even marginalized even more. Eventually, the Reublicans will become totally unaccountable and we will face a crisis that we will totally be unable to combat because of it.

[Deblano]

Both parties are in utter turmoil IMO.

The Republicans have had the Trumpists launch a coup and create a tense, uneasy peace.

The Democrats are struggling to find a new direction and new leadership, and risk becoming as dysfunctional as the UK Labour Party.

We are entering a new party system and transitioning from the one that has existed since the late 1960s.

History will show 2016 as a significant shift in the political malaise.

You are probably on the money.

Trump was a symptom, not a cause, of the political malaise IMO.

[angus]

They should enjoy the party while it lasts because the changing demographics are not exactly in their favor and because they have a habit of alienating just about every key group in politics.

Much is made about the 18-30 crowd growing into voting age and displacing the dead and dying voting base, but we must remember that as millenials age, so do their earnings and investment portolios.  Normally this would favor the republicans.  However, many of the current republicans, and especially the Trumpsters, are more protectionist and blue collar, and over time the republican party platform may reflect these tendencies.  Simultaneously the democrats are appealing less to the rural and the working poor, and more to the very highly educated and upwardly mobile.

Of course the republicans will be in trouble at certain times in the future, and so will the democrats.  Still, the two major parties have shifted when necessary to reflect the dominant societal concerns, and I have no reason to think that they would not continue to do so.  They take turns being the "in" party.  I wish that were not the case--the two major parties are derelict and ideologically inconsistent, winning largely because people do not take seriously alternative parties--but if the past is any guide to the future, then we can assume that the democrats and republicans will continue to be the two major parties by shifting priorities as the voting population changes.