Serious Q for Republicans
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 12:08:51 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Serious Q for Republicans
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6
Author Topic: Serious Q for Republicans  (Read 6562 times)
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #100 on: February 10, 2017, 08:35:14 PM »

In the long term, the Republicans best chance of winning Hispanic votes is to focus on the needs of blue collar Americans. In the end, Hispanics have more in common with working class whites than they do with college educated whites, and are unlikely to be a permanently disadvantaged community. Now, Donald Trump is not the ideal Republican candidate to do so, but he's also not going to be president forever. It turns out Hispanics want the same things everyone else does.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #101 on: February 11, 2017, 02:07:32 AM »

In the long term, the Republicans best chance of winning Hispanic votes is to focus on the needs of blue collar Americans. In the end, Hispanics have more in common with working class whites than they do with college educated whites, and are unlikely to be a permanently disadvantaged community. Now, Donald Trump is not the ideal Republican candidate to do so, but he's also not going to be president forever. It turns out Hispanics want the same things everyone else does.

-I have sympathies to this position, but Hispanics clearly have a great deal of Dem machine loyalty not explainable by social rank. Compare places of similar income in East Tennessee and South Texas.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #102 on: February 11, 2017, 03:09:37 PM »

Working class Whites, by how you both defined them, will not be a significant part of the GOP in 20 years.  The future of minority outreach is getting affluent minorities to appreciate conservatism that would benefit them.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #103 on: February 11, 2017, 08:12:57 PM »

As Hispanics assimilate (just like the Irish, Italians, and Jews did), they will become part of the white mainstream (at least the majority of Hispanics who have white skin), so America will never truly be majority-minority (or anywhere close to it).

This might have happened... then Trump came alone.  See California over the last 20 years for more on this topic.

-Californian Hispanics are strongly Democrat because California's non-Hispanic Whites are strongly Democrat. California is filled with liberal elitists, including some of the first non-Jewish ones to switch to the Dems.
True the White Vote although shrinking as a % of CA's electorate has gone or swung more Dem than in a lot of other states of late.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #104 on: February 11, 2017, 08:17:19 PM »

As Hispanics assimilate (just like the Irish, Italians, and Jews did), they will become part of the white mainstream (at least the majority of Hispanics who have white skin), so America will never truly be majority-minority (or anywhere close to it).

This might have happened... then Trump came alone.  See California over the last 20 years for more on this topic.
Trump? Hispanics didn't vote any differently for Trump than they did for other GOP Presidential Nominees pre-Trump.

Jewish People-They are a D voting group although Romney won 37% of the Jewish Vote in 2012 but Trump only ran low-mid 20's with them.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #105 on: February 11, 2017, 08:25:18 PM »

If Kasich and Rubio don't count as "conservative" by your definition, clearly your definition is very narrow...

And wrong, LOL.

Anywho, I won't get into why I think being a protectionist in Coolidge's age is completely different than being one today (and, using Coolidge's own pro-business rhetoric on the issue, arguably closer to being for free trade today ... motive is ALWAYS more important than method, period), as I have discussed it so many times here.  Bottom line is that people like Eharding (and, ironically, Non Swing Voter on the other side of the aisle) are absolutely adamant that affluent Republicans - some of the voters who have been with the party the longest, LOL - will eventually just become straight-ticket Democrats, and the idea is ridiculous for a number of reasons that they aren't willing to listen to (two particularly funny ones are that this BS "college degree" correlation has a hell of a lot more to do with the AGE of the White voters in question than some magical political change that happens if you go to college and also that the exact types of people they think are going to be exiting the GOP HAVEN'T EXITED THE GOP AND ARE VERY INTENT ON STAYING, haha), but that is not the narrative either of those groups (Trumpist populists and self-deluded liberal hacks) want to push; neither furthers the grand battle they perceive themselves to be fighting.

-You know the state that voted Republican the most times was Vermont, right? It had a GOP Senator as recently as 2000. Times change.

Trump literally hired the CEO of ExxonMobil as his Secretary of State. He's one of the most pro-business presidents in history.
Yeah Trump is pro-business but he is a populist on the issue of trade for example.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #106 on: February 11, 2017, 08:55:03 PM »

So far, death patterns have actually been helping the GOP due to the death of the New Deal Democrats.

People who grew up under FDR have long since passed or become such a small portion of the population that its irrelevant. That happened over a decade ago. Over the past decade the people who have been increasingly dying off in large numbers if the Silent generation - people who grew up mostly under Truman and Eisenhower, who have all tended to skew more Republican. Within 5 - 8 years all of the remaining silent gen. will be over 80 years old, which would be a very small portion of the electorate.

Point is, since 2007-ish, the death rates have increasingly and very disproportionately affected Republicans due to the heavy GOP leanings of the silent generation. Because the GOP relies heavily on Boomers and the older portion of Gen. X, old voters "aging" out of the electorate will disproportionately affect the GOP for the next 20 - 25 years at least.


-If Romney won 50% of Latinos with no gains with non-college Whites, he would still have lost in the electoral college. Think!

It's more about long-term viability. Consistently scoring these kinds of numbers among Hispanics is going to eventually bring down states like TX, AZ and put states like NV/CO permanently off the map. Florida may also be another concern in this regard. Problems with minorities and Millennials is showing similar trends to other states slipping from the GOP's grasp, with the caveat here being that the constant influx of older voters and an electorate whose white voters have shifted more Republican has bought the GOP more time to dick around.

-

The GOP can't just write off these portions of the electorate. And waiting for them to assimilate and start voting like whites is ridiculous. It is basically the same as saying "we have no plan." There is no guarantee that will ever bring you close to the support you need long-term. It's also a pretty lazy approach that I can only imagine future Republicans will resent the older GOP generations for.
Yeah but Silents weren't always as Republicans as they are now. They either split 50/50 between the 2 parties from 1993-2008 or slightly leaned R. They have only swung heavily R since the 2008 Presidential Election. Silents actually voted for Clinton in '96 and Gore in 2000 that were 18 years of age when Eisenhower was President. Silents who were 18 when Truman were President voted for Gore in 2000 and were only 1 point more R than the overall Presidential Vote in 1996.

True Silents who were 18 years old when Eisenhower was President voted for Bush W. in 2004 but they voted at the Presidential Popular Vote average. Also, yes Silents voted for Bush W. in 2004 and were 3 points more R than the overall Presidential Popular Vote.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #107 on: February 11, 2017, 09:18:22 PM »

Working class Whites, by how you both defined them, will not be a significant part of the GOP in 20 years.  The future of minority outreach is getting affluent minorities to appreciate conservatism that would benefit them.

-Affluent minorities do not and will not "appreciate conservatism" because they aren't conservative. The WWC is. Your predictions are quite far from reality. Would you have predicted in 1996 that the Dems would win DuPage County in 2012?
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #108 on: February 11, 2017, 11:36:44 PM »

Minorities are not an alien species. They can vote for conservatives, provided the right political approach and structure. The first thing would be to stop treating them as a - oh it's eHarding. Why do I even bother. He's an unreconstructed segregationist.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #109 on: February 11, 2017, 11:38:24 PM »

Working class Whites, by how you both defined them, will not be a significant part of the GOP in 20 years.  The future of minority outreach is getting affluent minorities to appreciate conservatism that would benefit them.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #110 on: February 12, 2017, 12:30:36 AM »

As Hispanics assimilate (just like the Irish, Italians, and Jews did), they will become part of the white mainstream (at least the majority of Hispanics who have white skin), so America will never truly be majority-minority (or anywhere close to it).

This might have happened... then Trump came alone.  See California over the last 20 years for more on this topic.
Trump? Hispanics didn't vote any differently for Trump than they did for other GOP Presidential Nominees pre-Trump.

Jewish People-They are a D voting group although Romney won 37% of the Jewish Vote in 2012 but Trump only ran low-mid 20's with them.

My point was more directed to the fact that in California the Governor at the time went after hispanics and ever since Hispanics there shifted markedly to the Democratic party... Trump has already shown signs of going after Hispanics, so I wouldn't be surprised if the group moves further to the Democratic party similar to the margins they get in California (70-30 or so).  If this happens it will be disastrous for Republicans.  They cannot lose black voters 90-10, hispanics 70-30, and asians 70-30 and expect to win nationwide elections going forward.  There are simply not enough white voters that they can convert to offset this.
Black Voters have been voting 90-10% D for 50 years and I don't think that's changing anytime soon. The Republicans get around 27-30% of the Hispanic Vote each Presidential Election nationally. In California I think the Republican Candidate gets 20-25% of the Hispanic Vote each Presidential Election.

No, that's a myth actually that the California Governor(Pete Wilson) and Prop 187 that the Hispanic Vote got more Dem. I read somewhere(I think it was National Review) that 23% of Hispanics identified as Republicans in CA in 1990 but in 1992 that number was only 12%. 33% of Hispanics actually voted for Prop 187 in 1994 and Pete Wilson got 21% of the Hispanic Vote but he actually did win 20% of the Black Vote that year.

The Asian Vote is only important in VA and NV. I do think with Rubio and Kasich a Republican Presidential Candidate could have done well in NOVA in order to win Virginia or at least come close to winning it but Trump was the wrong republican candidate for the state.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #111 on: February 12, 2017, 12:39:48 AM »

As Hispanics assimilate (just like the Irish, Italians, and Jews did), they will become part of the white mainstream (at least the majority of Hispanics who have white skin), so America will never truly be majority-minority (or anywhere close to it).

This might have happened... then Trump came alone.  See California over the last 20 years for more on this topic.

-Californian Hispanics are strongly Democrat because California's non-Hispanic Whites are strongly Democrat. California is filled with liberal elitists, including some of the first non-Jewish ones to switch to the Dems.

Yes and this realization highlights one of the problems to the strategy I see being proferred here a lot... which is... Republicans will have an easier time picking off more white voters than minorities in the future... no... there will always be a solid 30%+ of white voters who will be the Democrats' most loyal constituency based on some ideological reason (abortion, gun control, gay marriage)... also there are certainly sub-groups of white voters (LGBTQ, Jewish, etc.) that will probably continue to staunchly support the Democratic party, ensuring Democrats a consistent share of the white vote.  Make no mistake, if Republicans don't improve with minorities they are going to have a problem going forward.  The fact that Trump won a bunch of swing states by tiny margins does not change that fact.

I hate to continually use Virginia as an example, but this is the future... Republicans maxed out the white vote... the minority population kept growing...  Republicans couldn't counter it and they couldn't improve further among whites in NOVA who are ideologically too liberal to swing over.
Yeah but the state changed very little in terms of demographics from 2004 when Bush W. carried Virginia in the Presidential Election to 2006 when Jim Webb beat George Allen in the 2006 US Senate Race there.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #112 on: February 12, 2017, 12:46:31 AM »

Working class Whites, by how you both defined them, will not be a significant part of the GOP in 20 years.  The future of minority outreach is getting affluent minorities to appreciate conservatism that would benefit them.

-Affluent minorities do not and will not "appreciate conservatism" because they aren't conservative. The WWC is. Your predictions are quite far from reality. Would you have predicted in 1996 that the Dems would win DuPage County in 2012?
Hispanics actually vote more R the more money that they make. With Asian and Black People income means very little in terms of voting R vs D although the poorest Asians do vote more D than the Asian Vote as a whole.

WWC is conservative
-Depends which WWC's you are talking about. If you are talking WWC Conservatives than yes but if you are talking about WWC Moderates than no. WWC's aren't conservative as a whole I don't think. Obama only lost WWC Moderates by 13% in 2012 where as Hillary lost them by double that by 26% from an article I read on Real Clear Politics.Com  a couple months ago.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #113 on: February 12, 2017, 01:10:46 AM »

EHarding, you keep mentioning Williamson County, TN as an example of an upper-income place that voted against Trump in the primary and then refer to these types of places as places that will eventually be Democratic strongholds.  Do you really expect Williamson County- which The Daily Caller ranks as the most conservative place in America- to become Democratic territory?

-By fits and starts, eventually. Not in 2024, but maybe 2036. The model for this is DuPage county, IL. Nearly the same percentage of Williamson County, TN voters went for HRC in 2016 as DuPage County, IL voters went for Michael Dukakis. Twenty years after 1988, DuPage County, IL voted Dem for the first time ever -and will stay that way on the presidential level for a long, long time. But I expect Delaware County, Ohio and the Texas suburbs to flip first. Who will be Texas's Democratic John Tower, I wonder?
I don't know if I am going off on topic here but without Cook County and it wouldn't matter how DuPage County votes Illinois is probably politically like Missouri.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #114 on: February 12, 2017, 01:24:50 AM »
« Edited: February 12, 2017, 01:26:43 AM by Eharding »

EHarding, you keep mentioning Williamson County, TN as an example of an upper-income place that voted against Trump in the primary and then refer to these types of places as places that will eventually be Democratic strongholds.  Do you really expect Williamson County- which The Daily Caller ranks as the most conservative place in America- to become Democratic territory?

-By fits and starts, eventually. Not in 2024, but maybe 2036. The model for this is DuPage county, IL. Nearly the same percentage of Williamson County, TN voters went for HRC in 2016 as DuPage County, IL voters went for Michael Dukakis. Twenty years after 1988, DuPage County, IL voted Dem for the first time ever -and will stay that way on the presidential level for a long, long time. But I expect Delaware County, Ohio and the Texas suburbs to flip first. Who will be Texas's Democratic John Tower, I wonder?
I don't know if I am going off on topic here but without Cook County and it wouldn't matter how DuPage County votes Illinois is probably politically like Missouri.

-Try Iowa or Ohio. Trump won Illinois by 6.75 points outside Cook County.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #115 on: February 12, 2017, 01:38:01 AM »

Working class Whites, by how you both defined them, will not be a significant part of the GOP in 20 years.  The future of minority outreach is getting affluent minorities to appreciate conservatism that would benefit them.

-Affluent minorities do not and will not "appreciate conservatism" because they aren't conservative. The WWC is. Your predictions are quite far from reality. Would you have predicted in 1996 that the Dems would win DuPage County in 2012?
Hispanics actually vote more R the more money that they make. With Asian and Black People income means very little in terms of voting R vs D although the poorest Asians do vote more D than the Asian Vote as a whole.

WWC is conservative
-Depends which WWC's you are talking about. If you are talking WWC Conservatives than yes but if you are talking about WWC Moderates than no. WWC's aren't conservative as a whole I don't think. Obama only lost WWC Moderates by 13% in 2012 where as Hillary lost them by double that by 26% from an article I read on Real Clear Politics.Com  a couple months ago.

-I suspect the income--->Republican vote correlation among Hispanics is stronger in low-rent states such as TX than in high-rent states like CA.
Logged
Tartarus Sauce
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,363
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #116 on: February 13, 2017, 12:19:38 AM »
« Edited: February 13, 2017, 12:35:16 AM by Tartarus Sauce »

I think the fundamental disagreements about which groups are, which groups aren't, and which groups could potentially be conservative has to do with the fact that the different ideological factions of conservatism are splintering and in the process of potentially realigning. The foreign policy conservatives are already some of the most alienated from the current shift under Trump, which is why so many of the former Reagan through Bush Jr. era security-intelligence community and state department officials overwhelmingly backed Clinton. Socially moderate, fiscal conservatives were also appalled by Trump and swung against him in many suburbs across the nation during the election, and this is the group that has the greatest potential for even further alienation from the conservative coalition. College-educated Whites compose a rather large percentage of this branch of the conservative coalition, and college educated whites are far less receptive to authoritarian populism than working class whites.

And then there's the social conservatives, who I would argue are the true lifeblood of the Republican party, and also the reason that the original conservative coalition is possibly on the verge of unraveling entirely. The Religious Right has so heavily affixed themselves to the Republican platform that they have essentially politicized the Republican party into a self-styled "Christian" party. No, you don't have to be Christian to be a Republican, but "traditional" Christian values are a hallmark of the Republican brand. The crux of the matter is that American society is increasingly not accepting traditional Christian values as the standard, and the Evangelicals, conservative Catholics, and conservative Mainlines have as a result fulfilled the role of cultural reactionaries. Trump has finalized the transfer of a new group of cultural reactionaries who aren't nearly as religiously minded yet still have political enemies in common with social conservatives: liberals, illegal immigrants, and Muslims.

Trump is now overwhelmingly backed by conservative Christians despite a cool reception at first, because he has promised to be their culturally reactionary champion. He has pandered to them in the most obscenely hollow of ways, yet that in itself should indicate how they will accept anybody who pantomimes their values no matter how insincere and shallow the display may be. They are desperate to turn back the tide of a diversifying, liberalizing, and increasingly pluralist society that doesn't follow their norms.

The threat here is that Trump could end up realigning the axis of the Republican party. Traditionally, social conservatives and social moderates in the right wing have found common ground on economic issues. Trump has the potential to shift that alliance into one between social conservatives and economic protectionists by having cultural reactionism usurp fiscal policy as the unifying link between factions. That would wholesale alienate the majority of your educated suburban, socially moderate Republicans that already swung against Trump in the general election. That should serve as an omen to what could happen to an even greater degree if cultural issues become the defining feature of the Republican party under Trump's auspices, because college-educated, fiscally conservative Republicans have more in common culturally with college educated liberals than they do with either social conservatives or the Trump faction.

I'm not saying this necessarily will happen, but if it does, it's the recipe for Republicans delegating themselves to the status of a minority party for at least a couple of decades. They would become the party of White Christian nationalism during a period of time when a rising tide of minorities, immigrants, Millennials, and college-educated Whites want nothing to do with White Christian nationalism. This is what the Republicans must keep in mind if they want to remain a viable party on the national level.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #117 on: February 13, 2017, 01:05:09 AM »

Tartarus, you are half-right and half-wrong. What you must remember is there are ALWAYS more people than elites. That's how Trump won.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #118 on: February 13, 2017, 11:48:58 AM »
« Edited: February 13, 2017, 11:58:22 AM by PR »

Demographics is destiny,  Part 87744081116664327 - as the Democratic Party controls quite close to absolutely nothing at any level of government.
Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #119 on: February 13, 2017, 03:27:15 PM »

Demographics is destiny,  Part 87744081116664327 - as the Democratic Party controls quite close to absolutely nothing at any level of government.

Yes, but that will change in four years when more older people die off, you see.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #120 on: February 13, 2017, 03:56:33 PM »

Tartarus, you are half-right and half-wrong. What you must remember is there are ALWAYS more people than elites. That's how Trump won.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #121 on: February 13, 2017, 04:01:47 PM »
« Edited: February 13, 2017, 04:05:57 PM by Virginia »

Demographics is destiny,  Part 87744081116664327 - as the Democratic Party controls quite close to absolutely nothing at any level of government.

But that means nothing. From 1968 - 1992, where Republicans controlled the presidency, their power at almost every level was driven to depths that were at times far lower than what Democrats suffer from now. Clinton's first midterm and Democrats imploded, not to recover for a long time. Point is: if there is a genuine shift in the electorate, how much power a party has at the time won't really matter.

And this is a discussion about a long-term event. That it hasn't materialized endless results right now doesn't make it less significant. This topic is pretty much centered around something that we have acknowledged won't happen for years. The least you could do is not make fun of something that quite frankly isn't as stupid or meaningless as you think.

Yes, but that will change in four years when more older people die off, you see.

For as simplistic as you think we're being, you're being equally simplistic in ignoring the significance of what it means for a party who is heavily reliant on old people to lose more old people every 4 years than the opposition.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #122 on: February 13, 2017, 04:09:02 PM »

Tartarus, you are half-right and half-wrong. What you must remember is there are ALWAYS more people than elites. That's how Trump won.

Will you stop acting like Clinton voters were "elites"?
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #123 on: February 13, 2017, 04:19:06 PM »

Tartarus, you are half-right and half-wrong. What you must remember is there are ALWAYS more people than elites. That's how Trump won.

Will you stop acting like Clinton voters were "elites"?

-Romney-Clinton voters were mostly elites.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #124 on: February 13, 2017, 04:55:40 PM »

Tartarus, you are half-right and half-wrong. What you must remember is there are ALWAYS more people than elites. That's how Trump won.

Will you stop acting like Clinton voters were "elites"?

-Romney-Clinton voters were mostly elites.

That's the point: White people with college degrees aren't "elite," they're very mainstream.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.07 seconds with 12 queries.