Serious Q for Republicans

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Doesn't it concern you at least somewhat that Democrats wipe the floor with you each and every election with minority voters?  There isn't even a positive trend.  Yet every 4 years they become an additional 2% of the vote.  You do realize at some point winning becomes implausible unless you improve among African Americans/Hispanics/Asians right?  

What is the long term strategy here?

Another thing to keep in mind... people that are around 25-45 are probably the most liberal current generation, thanks in large part to George W. Bush.  This group is going to replace the 80+ year olds who die off in the next 10-20 years.  So the country is probably going to get more liberal as well...

-There obviously is a positive trend among Hispanics. Look at the South Texas counties from 1960 to today. In any case, differential fertility also favors White Cruzlims, as well as Hispanics.

The long-term strategy here is to revise immigration downward. We don't want the entirety of the United States to become New Mexico (even if New Mexico was a solidly Republican state!).

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

Stuff like candidate quality and outside circumstances is far more influential on the nationwide vote than mass immigration and differential fertility, at least, in the short-term. By how much would Trump have won the popular vote in 2000 had he been the GOP candidate that year?

Dems control no branches of government at present due to Trump's successful use of the Sailer strategy (designed in 2000), so they crow about imaginary victories in the distant future. But I say unto you, thou shalt not count thine chickens before they hatch!

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

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.

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

Also, "immigration reform" is simply code for "national suicide". Why not make Mexico City the capital of the U.S. in 2017, then? I'm not a fan, BTW.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Also Hispanics are overwhelmingly concentrated in states like Texas, California and New York that are not currently competitive so they have less impact on the election than thought because they are inefficiently located for the Electoral College.

-Indeed. Winning only 51 fewer electoral votes than Donald J. Trump because you spent all your money on Hispanic outreach isn't much fun:

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Not a Republican, but I assume President Trump's supreme court and the state legislatures will have disenfranchised all of those people and closed the borders by then so that Republicans can still coast to victory on their white dominance

No borders aren't closing any borders off even by The Trump Administration.

-That would be the missed opportunity of a lifetime. At least Gorsuch won't amnesty the illegal immigrants by judicial fiat.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Virginia, you have a very overactive imagination. I suggest keeping it to yourself, lest you be embarrassed by another Trump victory.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Virginia, you have a very overactive imagination. I suggest keeping it to yourself, lest you be embarrassed by another Trump victory.

Nothing in my post suggested Trump couldn't win in 2020. I even said long-term twice. If you want to call simple addition and subtraction part of my overactive imagination, then by all means, continue.

-Think a DJT Jr. victory in 2032. In any case, if you used your assumptions in 1988, you would have predicted inevitable doom for both DJT and GWB. Instead, the Hispanic and White votes both trended towards the GOP since then. Yes; in the long run, the country may be New Mexicanized, as you predict. But, despite the deterioration of U.S. institutions, the GOP will continue to survive, just as it does in mayoral races, though in a less conservative form (of course, I would prefer a more conservative form).

If, however, your assumptions are correct, the first priorities of the GOP should be immigration reduction and the institution of a stiff tax on out-of-wedlock births. The second priority of the GOP should be the institution of political business cycles to make sure economic growth is always highest in presidential election years, so as to positively impact the younger generation's perceptions of the GOP. The third priority of the GOP should be an incorporation of Ron Paulism into its appeal, for the same purpose as the second priority.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

-Think a DJT Jr. victory in 2032. In any case, if you used your assumptions in 1988, you would have predicted inevitable doom for both DJT and GWB.

Actually, based on the numbers I would have seen then, which probably wouldn't have given me strong hope of the growth of a bloc of voters that is persistently & strongly Democratic (minorities), and strong GOP performance among the youth might have led me to believe the GOP will enjoy years longer of presidential success. All else things the same, without the growth of minorities that might have been true. Actually, though, despite Bill's 2 terms, the 80s-90s and early-mid 2000s was still a pretty good time for Republicans.

If, however, your assumptions are correct, the first priorities of the GOP should be immigration reduction and the institution of a stiff tax on out-of-wedlock births. The second priority of the GOP should be the institution of political business cycles to make sure economic growth is always highest in presidential election years, so as to positively impact the younger generation's perceptions of the GOP. The third priority of the GOP should be an incorporation of Ron Paulism into its appeal, for the same purpose as the second priority.

I do actually agree with your last 2 points there (business cycle & Paulism), although my opinions on the latter are more mixed. Your party for sure needs to stop picking losing fights over various social issues.

Republicans don't need the minority vote as long as they can keep increasing their share of the white vote.

There lies the problem. TD has actually gone over this a couple different ways, iirc. For instance, the GOP's success in moving more whites into the party over the past 15+ years has simply been too little, too late. Their existing success would need to be accelerated a good bit, and right now there isn't much to show that they can actually keep getting more white voters anyway. They can try, but white Millennials so far have shown themselves not to be as receptive to the GOP and that would immediately hinder GOP efforts to expand their ranks.

-The Hispanic population grew by 50% during the 1980s. The non-Hispanic-White population grew by 6%. This was all well-covered at the time. Don't make up numbers. And Hispanics were far more strongly Democratic in the 1980s (relative to the non-Hispanic White vote) than today.

In the 1998 elections, the GOP won 55 Senate seats (one more than it did in the 2014 elections) and won the House popular vote by 1.1 points (4.6 points fewer than it did in 2014). The Clinton era was not a better time for the GOP than the Age of Obama.

You do realize DJT got more votes than any previous GOP nominee, right?

If DJT won uniformly 10% more of the Hispanic vote, he'd only win six more electoral votes. If he won uniformly 3.5% more of the non-Hispanic White vote, he'd have won twenty more electoral votes. White outreach is simply a winning strategy for the GOP, and it will be for decades to come. I'm not a fan of making up numbers.

The nationwide 1992 GOP bloodbath was not due to an influx of minorities, but WJC winning states like Kentucky and Montana.

The White youth in the 2000s were mentally scarred by the Iraq War and the GOP putting up candidates with no appeal to them. Trump solved some of these problems (especially on foreign policy) while creating others (expressing an explicit backward-looking posture on the economy). In any case, new generations always arise.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

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

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

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.

-A majority of HRC's coalition was non-Hispanic White.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

OK

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

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.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

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.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

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.

EHarding, I have to disagree with you there.  Places like the suburbs of Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston aren't exactly liberal Republican bastions and are very ideologically conservative (look at who represents these areas in Congress).  There were some conservatives turned off by Trump, but I think these are the first people he would win back in 2020.

-This isn't 1996. Fairfax and DuPage were Dole counties, too. Things change. Barbara Comstock's, Pete Sessions's, and Tom Price's seats will be Titanium D by 2026. I haven't checked the primary vote in TX and GA, but my guess is Rubio and Kasich voters, having a similar demographic to Obama primary White voters, will someday leave the GOP for good. They are "the least conservative portion of the party", though they are still by no means always unwilling to support men like Price and Sessions. They remain largely Republican downballot for similar reasons people like them were Dole voters two decades ago.

Turns out, Cruz primary voteshare was uncorrelated with Trump overperforming Romney in the general election in GA.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/17/a_deep_dive_into_the_trump_and_clinton_coalitions_132367.html

I only consider a Cruz vote outside Texas a true anti-Trump True Conservative vote. Rubio voters still largely (though not entirely) belonged to "the least conservative portion of the party".

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Guys, let's look at the constituency correlations. Kasich voters tended to live around general election Obama voters to the greatest extent. Super Tuesday Rubio voters did so to a lesser extent; cf., Rubio's win in solidly Republican Williamson County, TN, but the correlation between White Obama vote in November 2012 and Rubio primary vote share is still very much positive (look at Atlanta, NoVa, etc.). Cruz voters tended to live in the most pro-Romney areas in November 2012. The typical Trump voter lived in a less pro-Obama county than the typical Super Tuesday Rubio voter, but in a more pro-Obama one than the typical Cruz voter. The ideologies are, thus, Kasich to the Left of Rubio, who's to the Left of Trump, who's to the Left of Cruz. Very simple, and consistent with a first impression.

TD, you're going to be the new BRTD by the time this is over.

RINO, Trump's positions simply are not that different from those of Coolidge. They are well within Fourth Party System GOP tradition. I mean, you even call yourself RINO Tom, and have a Political Matrix score clearly less conservative than mine, so your redefinition of low-tax liberalism as conservatism is a bit rich.

I voted for Trump in the primary because I did not trust Cruz with the nuclear button or to be genuinely independent of outside influences. I would have gladly voted for him over HRC had he been the nominee because of the Supreme Court, as unlikeable as he was.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

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?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

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

-Rubio's conservative, Kasich is not. It is, thus, notable, that Rubio (much as I dislike him) voted for Trump and Kasich didn't.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

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.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

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.

-What has NATO done since 1992 other than encourage Islamic terrorism? "Interfere" is anti-thinking, it is a word meant to obscure, not describe. How's the non-autocratic Libya working out?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

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

-Rubio's conservative, Kasich is not. It is, thus, notable, that Rubio (much as I dislike him) voted for Trump and Kasich didn't.

Based on this post, all I can assume is that "whether or not they voted for Trump" is your only qualifier for "conservatism", which I still consider to be a very weird definition.

-Nope. I'm going by Congressional voting record here. Jeff Flake's conservative, for instance.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

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.

-What has NATO done since 1992 other than encourage Islamic terrorism? "Interfere" is anti-thinking, it is a word meant to obscure, not describe. How's the non-autocratic Libya working out?

Learn your history. NATO troops fought in Afghanistan to keep Taliban out of power, who were providing sanctuary to Al-Qaeda

-And Afghanistan remains a terrorist haven.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

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?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

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

-Rubio's conservative, Kasich is not. It is, thus, notable, that Rubio (much as I dislike him) voted for Trump and Kasich didn't.

Based on this post, all I can assume is that "whether or not they voted for Trump" is your only qualifier for "conservatism", which I still consider to be a very weird definition.

-Nope. I'm going by Congressional voting record here. Jeff Flake's conservative, for instance.

Okay, I'll bite. On which issues is Kasich not conservative on?

-Immigration, Medicaid expansion, Roe v. Wade, same-sex marriage, Common Core.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

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.

-WWC were always the swing vote. The last time they were more Dem than college-educated Whites was the 1996 presidential election. I think the education gap will only intensify in the coming two decades.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

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

-Also, most pro-Dole county in Tennessee in 1996, and the only county in TN that went for Rubio in the primary, as well as the one in TN that swung most against the GOP nominee in 2016. One of the few counties in TN to go for Obama over HRC in 2008 and to swing in the direction of Barack Obama in the general that same year.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

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.

-WWC were always the swing vote. The last time they were more Dem than college-educated Whites was the 1996 presidential election. I think the education gap will only intensify in the coming two decades.

Because millennials are very Democratic and more have college degrees, not because of a long term shift in how affluent Whites vote.  Really pretty simple: as having a college degree has become less exclusive, that share of the electorate has gotten more Democratic (not to mention a heavily Democratic generation of New Deal folks, VERY few of which had a college degree, ceasing to be part of the electorate).

It is SO far from a sure thing that Trumpism defines the GOP going forward.  It's equally likely this is a fluke.

-That's clearly wrong, as the Democratic trend has been largest among postgraduates. Yes; there has been a clear shift in how affluent Whites vote; look at Denver and Chicago suburbs.

John McCain, Bob Dole, Gerald Ford, and Marco Rubio are the Republican Party's past. They are not its future.