Serious Q for Republicans

[The_Doctor]

This is no longer a long term problem for the Republicans. Trump was the first President elected who was affected by this problem. Minorities made up 29% of the electorate and their 75-24% support to Clinton couldn't be offset by a historically high 21% margin among whites. The House GOP eked out the popular vote by 1%, and they won the white vote by 22%.

If you do the math, every 4 years, they need like an extra 3% of the white vote to just offset minority growth. This means the GOP has to increase their white vote totals to 61%, then 64%, then 68% or so by 2028. As an comparison, Bush won whites by 17% in 2004. Trump won it by 21%. That's a shift of 4 points in 12 years. The big difference between Bush and Trump is that Bush won 44% of Latinos and 44% of Asians and 40% of others. Trump hit 29% of Latinos and Asians and 11% of blacks, roughly the same as Romney.

And the 3% growth among white support just translates into 51% support each election. It means that the GOP is vulnerable to defections from say, groups of whites, who are not a homogeneous group. So, basically, the mathematical model says the GOP is locked into decades of 51% wins without growth among minority support, and that's being generous and saying the white vote will increase 3% each election for the GOP.

White population is set to decrease beginning in 2024, as well. That just heightens the minority bloc's importance. Even if you put in a national voting restriction law, it's been shown they decrease the Democratic margin by 1-2%, so you're only protecting yourself in a close race, not a landslide.

Somehow, the concern that was there during the Bush years has been completely lost in the Trump years. Their Muslim ban, the border wall with Mexico, everything doesn't seem geared towards minority voters but to the 90% white base.

[The_Doctor]

Somehow I don't see the Hispanics being that into the party that has a President that calls them rapists and mocks them and wants to build a wall with Mexico. Seems to me that it's the kind of thing that prevents them from backing that Party.

They voted 65-29% Democratic for a reason and they've been voting Democratic since the 1960s. Republicans aren't changing that trend. Simply put if Republicans insulted my lineage and my background I'd be pretty sure I'd be hostile to them. “Otherizing“ a group seems a surefire way to get that group to consistently vote against you.

[The_Doctor]

We just need to work harder to bring God back into the public sphere and convert more of them into Evangelical Christians.

Yes, that ship has sailed. Thanks, though.

[The_Doctor]

We just need to work harder to bring God back into the public sphere and convert more of them into Evangelical Christians.

Yes, that ship has sailed. Thanks, though.

It's a better plan than some meaningless platitudes about "communicating conservative values" to minorities.

I don't think that's a winning strategy, in the increasingly irreligious United States, let alone it's not within a political party's sphere to convert people to Christianity. Probably would offend that growing bloc of non-religious voters, might cause even more problems.

It could just be wiser to do immigration reform and try to win 40% of Latinos. But of course, that's too hard for the Republicans.

[The_Doctor]

I don't respond to EHarding when he rambles about his devotion to this ideal of white America and his constant fears of "New Mexico" America but a funny thought about the white vote struck me. Atlasia is vastly majority white, American, and would run into the 60s-70s leftist. I can't help but wonder if Atlas liberals represent the constant of 35-38% whites who vote Democratic in federal elections. If that's the case, Atlasia Democrats and minorities might be enough to derail EHarding's hopes.

Oh, and Trump won 18-29 whites by less than Romney did. They were 47-43% Republican, compared to 51-44% Republican in 2012.

[The_Doctor]

Somehow I don't see the Hispanics being that into the party that has a President that calls them rapists and mocks them and wants to build a wall with Mexico. Seems to me that it's the kind of thing that prevents them from backing that Party.

They voted 65-29% Democratic for a reason and they've been voting Democratic since the 1960s. Republicans aren't changing that trend. Simply put if Republicans insulted my lineage and my background I'd be pretty sure I'd be hostile to them. “Otherizing“ a group seems a surefire way to get that group to consistently vote against you.

Trump did no worse than Romney with Hispanic Voters though in the end though.

Build a wall-Didn't Congress vote to build a fence in 2006 along the Mexican Border but the fence was never built?

The problem is that his white vote majority wasn't enough to surmount the fact that Latinos and minority voters were overall able to deliver a strong plurality to Clinton in the popular vote. It's not so much that Trump barely outperformed Romney as much as that given the glacial shift in the white population for the GOP that minority voters are going to be vastly more important going forward in the future.

[The_Doctor]

I don't respond to EHarding when he rambles about his devotion to this ideal of white America and his constant fears of "New Mexico" America but a funny thought about the white vote struck me. Atlasia is vastly majority white, American, and would run into the 60s-70s leftist. I can't help but wonder if Atlas liberals represent the constant of 35-38% whites who vote Democratic in federal elections. If that's the case, Atlasia Democrats and minorities might be enough to derail EHarding's hopes.

Oh, and Trump won 18-29 whites by less than Romney did. They were 47-43% Republican, compared to 51-44% Republican in 2012.

-It's called Massachusetts. I know it exists, and why: the marriage gap+liberal elitism. I prefer current New Mexico to current Massachusetts, but only due to the rent differential.

That 18-29 Whites number sounds dubious; HRC was a much worse candidate for young people than Barry O. The Upshot says White northern voters 18-29 without a college degree had the strongest anti-Dem trend of any age group:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html?_r=0

Sigh. Just because northern whites without a college degree turned towards Trump doesn't mean that overall all 18-29 whites did. Just because you dislike a stat I cited from the exit polling does nor make it untrue. I realize facts are out in the Trump era but…

[The_Doctor]

*snorts* I voted for Cruz in the Republican Primaries. And better yet I voted similarly in 2012's Republican primaries. I believed Cruz was a genuine Reaganite not the half addled protectionist nationalist nonsense Trump is. I certainly as heck didn't vote for that orange buffoon and I would never do so.

Thanks for “validating˝ that I acted like a conservative in the primaries though!

[The_Doctor]

I don't respond to EHarding when he rambles about his devotion to this ideal of white America and his constant fears of "New Mexico" America but a funny thought about the white vote struck me. Atlasia is vastly majority white, American, and would run into the 60s-70s leftist. I can't help but wonder if Atlas liberals represent the constant of 35-38% whites who vote Democratic in federal elections. If that's the case, Atlasia Democrats and minorities might be enough to derail EHarding's hopes.

Oh, and Trump won 18-29 whites by less than Romney did. They were 47-43% Republican, compared to 51-44% Republican in 2012.

-It's called Massachusetts. I know it exists, and why: the marriage gap+liberal elitism. I prefer current New Mexico to current Massachusetts, but only due to the rent differential.

That 18-29 Whites number sounds dubious; HRC was a much worse candidate for young people than Barry O. The Upshot says White northern voters 18-29 without a college degree had the strongest anti-Dem trend of any age group:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html?_r=0

I'm sure your world is just as insulated as mine based off of all of these comments, but you act like there aren't just as many elitist conservatives as there are elitist liberals.  You're wrong.

-There are as many rich conservatives as there are rich liberals, but elitism isn't quite the same as wealth. Yes; conservative elitism still exists in the U.S.; the Mercers are a big example. Williamson TN and Delaware OH haven't gone Dem yet. But a whole lot of traditionally Republican elites really showed their true (liberal) colors when Trump appeared before them. Just look at East Grand Rapids.

Considering you can't put TRUE tolerance (not SJW crap) on a simple left-right scale, a lot of those people - in addition to being turned off by Trump's, err, less-than-sophisticated language toward certain Americans - opposed Trump on the grounds that he wasn't ENOUGH in line with conservative thinking on issues such as entitlements, trade and foreign policy, so that's just a load of shlt.  Your ideology and that of Trump's most loyal supporters might be in the right at the end of the day, but conservatism is not officially defined by whatever angry Whites are feeling, in fact quite the opposite.  White Southerners who felt left behind during the Great Depression weren't conservatives, period.  Non-college Whites who flocked to Trump, similarly, don't get to redefine an ideology to describe whatever the hell they think.

-RINO, people like you did not vote for HRC because she was an avatar of conservatism. Look at your political matrix score. Now look at mine. These people were merely Carter-hating low-tax liberals. I'm not a fan. As for the True Conservatives, every single county in Indiana that went for Cruz in the primary trended towards Trump in the general. And every county that trended against Trump in Indiana had a Kasich vote share above that of Indiana as a whole. It wasn't conservative Republicans that crossed party lines this year to vote for HRC. It was the least conservative portion of the party. Just compare Kasich and Cruz's congressional voting records.

People like me, specifically, voted for Hillary because they thought Trump was quite literally unfit for office, beyond politics.  Hardly a comment on my political ideology.

Conservatism comes in many forms, and different voters prioritize different parts.  My sister's best friend's dad, who lives in Zionsville, IN (a suburb of Indy) and owns his own business is extremely conservative but doesn't think cultural things being legislated through the government is a worthwhile fight; he is just as conservative (I'd argue more) than some culturally conservative guy who rails against elites, wants to limit free trade and thinks, "yeah, ya know what?  The Democrats WERE right about taxing those evil millionaires a little bit more!"

A "low-tax liberal," as you describe such a person, is more conservative than a xenophobic liberal who shouts conservative as loud as they can, which is what this mythical "Working Class White" voter you fetishize about is.

Why don't we all just be across-the-board conservatives on both the economy and social/cultural issues?  

Because actual Trumpists (not counting the tons of people that voted for him, not endorsing his "movement" but to stop Hillary) aren't conservatives; they share nothing in common with the tradition of the Republican Party.  They just want an outlet for their anger over cultural change and what they see as an inadequate America, compared to some romanticized golden age.  Some had legitimate concerns, some are just intolerant.  Either way, they don't get to start being the RINO police, as they're all at LEAST as "not sufficiently conservative" as people like John Kasich or Marco Rubio.

Honestly, if we're going to start tossing around who's a conservative and not, why don't we start with the fact that Trump is decidedly to the left on several issues that would delineate traditional conservative orthodoxy in this age; e.g, commitment to free markets (read: free trade), lower taxes (Trump has said that he is open to raising taxes on the rich and negotiating with the Democrats), minimum wage (again, Trump has indicated a willingness to see a higher minimum wage), opposition to authoritarian regimes that threaten the hegemony and stability of the United States (Russia). There is of course Trump's famous break with neoconservatism (the war in Iraq), which he concocted some conspiracy theory about.

By a lot of metrics, Donald Trump is no conservative. His supporters are people who want government to actively interfere in the economy to restore jobs that have been lost through automation and trade (more automation). And arguably, if we're going by Reaganite conservatism, the Gipper and G.W. both favored immigration reform.

Trump is a populist conservative - no doubt he's conservative in a couple of areas, but to say that anti-Trumpists aren't conservative or somehow are not Republicans in name only is funny given Trump refused to commit to the GOP nominee if it wasn't him and broke with conservative orthodoxy multiple times.

[The_Doctor]

I don't know who BTRD is, in the first place, and second of all, I anticipate keeping my positions, just resisting your nationalist cult of the God-Emperor and his goons. I don't anticipate ever joining the Left in a formal position, and while I may vote Democratic to resist Trump, I certainly find myself feeling more conservative than liberal. (Of the neoliberal variety).

I assume that I rejoin the GOP once the crazy nationalists are thrown out of power in 2024 and we resettle into a more traditional dynamic. That would be up to the GOP to determine, however.

EDIT: I am somewhat open to Pence, provided he takes the necessary steps to repudiate Trumpism on Russia, et al.

[The_Doctor]

I don't know who BTRD is, in the first place, and second of all, I anticipate keeping my positions, just resisting your nationalist cult of the God-Emperor and his goons. I don't anticipate ever joining the Left in a formal position, and while I may vote Democratic to resist Trump, I certainly find myself feeling more conservative than liberal. (Of the neoliberal variety).

I assume that I rejoin the GOP once the crazy nationalists are thrown out of power in 2024 and we resettle into a more traditional dynamic. That would be up to the GOP to determine, however.

EDIT: I am somewhat open to Pence, provided he takes the necessary steps to repudiate Trumpism on Russia, et al.

-What's your beef with Russia? That it's fighting ISIS too hard?

I understand nations that interfere with Germany's, France, and our elections, plus opposition to NATO, plus doesn't want us in the Ukraine, or wants to expand its sphere and take away our influence and autocratic regimes are not much of a issue for you but they're an issue for me.

Russia is a menace. And yes, while you're for Mother Russia, I'll be happily in the anti-Russia conservative camp. Autocratic leaders who aren't for us (or willing to be for us) aren't really my thing.

[The_Doctor]

NATO has been involved in Bosnia. Generally, it's a nice European-American military alliance that keeps us fairly close. And it's a good organization to get Putin's hackles up and it bothers him. So I like NATO. Also you disliking NATO is a positive point for it.

"Interfere" isn't anti-thinking. I see you've adopted the 1984 Orwellian Trumpian thoughtspeak that means "Up is down." But no, in the real world, they interfere and try to swing these elections. I kind of have an objection. Now if you believe that we should be a satellite of Russia, we totally don't agree with the premise of this debate.

I see now you're a troll who likes autocracy. And that concludes my 30 seconds snarky answer/entertainment to you.

Moving along to more interesting things in life.

[The_Doctor]

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?

It is certainly what he wants to happen, but it obviously won't.  WWC voters will become Democrats before Williamson County types, easily.

I agree but what are Williamson types? Genuinely curious.

[The_Doctor]

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?

It is certainly what he wants to happen, but it obviously won't.  WWC voters will become Democrats before Williamson County types, easily.

I agree but what are Williamson types? Genuinely curious.

Williamson County, Tennessee (a wealthy and conservative suburb of Nashville):

-The richest county in America, adjusted for cost of living (and richest in the South, even without an adjustment)
-The biggest homes in America
-Ranked by the Daily Caller as the most conservative county in America

It is the type of place where pure Heritage Foundation policies are extremely popular.  It is the base of Marsha Blackburn's (who is so conservative that she rejects the term "congresswoman" as a politically correct misnomer) support.

Makes sense to me. Yeah I see WWC going Dem before this county.

[The_Doctor]

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.

[The_Doctor]

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.