Republican Party Facing a Stacked Deck in Coming Decades...

[Frodo]

Perhaps it's worth taking a closer look at the Emerging Democratic Majority:
--------------------------------------------------------------------

For Republicans, the Forces Aren't With Them

By Dan Balz
Sunday, June 14, 2009

There has been much chatter about who now speaks for the Republican Party, and whether the GOP has a message or an agenda to combat President Obama's popularity. Those questions are important to the party's future, but the most serious problem remains the deeper demographic and political forces at work in the country.

For the past few months, political analysts and demographers have been poring over the results of the 2008 election and comparing them with presidential results from the past two decades. From whatever angle of their approach -- age, race, economic status, geography -- they have come to a remarkably similar conclusion. Almost all indicators are pressing the Republicans into minority status.

Republicans are still capable of winning individual elections, but until they find a way to reverse, or at least minimize, these broader changes in the country, their chances of returning to majority status will be severely reduced.

The American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution convened a stellar cast on Friday to review what has been learned since November. The panel included Robert Lang of Virginia Tech; Ruy Teixeira of the Center for American Progress; William Frey of the Brookings Institution; Bill Bishop, a Texas writer and author of "The Big Sort"; Scott Keeter of the Pew Research Center; and Ronald Brownstein of Atlantic Media. They presented a wealth of data about what happened in 2008 and offered conclusions that would alarm any Republican hopeful of a quick turnaround in the party's fortunes.

[??????????]

Anyone with the name Dan Balz shouldn't be taken to seriously.

[Mint]

Right, because Hispanics will always trend Democratic even though they voted 45% for Bush just five years ago. The only current minority groups that the Democrats really have a stranglehold indefinitely are blacks. Of course the point about the suburbs is obviously valid now, but the idea that Republicans are doomed because non-anglos are growing is extremely presumptuous.

[Padfoot]

Right, because Hispanics will always trend Democratic even though they voted 45% for Bush just five years ago. The only current minority groups that the Democrats really have a stranglehold indefinitely are blacks. Of course the point about the suburbs is obviously valid now, but the idea that Republicans are doomed because non-anglos are growing is extremely presumptuous.

As long as Republicans take a nationalist approach to immigration and the related issues (i.e. English as the official language, zero tolerance for illegal immigrants) they will continue to lose ground with Hispanics and Asians to some degree.  Bush was more popular with Hispanics than your average Republican because he had a record of promoting compromise with regards to immigration reform, he speaks Spanish (I think), and he has Mexican-American members in his family which certainly didn't hurt him.  He also came from a state with a large Hispanic population and he catered to them during his runs for governor.

Bush is atypical when it comes to Republicans and Hispanics.  His support amongst this group is solely evidence of his personal popularity amongst Hispanics.  He is the exception, not the rule, when it comes to the current GOP and their performance amongst Hispanic voters.  The GOP's real (or perceived) positions on Hispanic-related issues are different enough from the positions Bush espoused to discredit any claims that the Republicans can make to being competitive amongst Hispanic voters.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Right, because Hispanics will always trend Democratic even though they voted 45% for Bush just five years ago. The only current minority groups that the Democrats really have a stranglehold indefinitely are blacks. Of course the point about the suburbs is obviously valid now, but the idea that Republicans are doomed because non-anglos are growing is extremely presumptuous.

As long as Republicans take a nationalist approach to immigration and the related issues (i.e. English as the official language, zero tolerance for illegal immigrants) they will continue to lose ground with Hispanics and Asians to some degree.  Bush was more popular with Hispanics than your average Republican because he had a record of promoting compromise with regards to immigration reform, he speaks Spanish (I think), and he has Mexican-American members in his family which certainly didn't hurt him.  He also came from a state with a large Hispanic population and he catered to them during his runs for governor.

Bush is atypical when it comes to Republicans and Hispanics.  His support amongst this group is solely evidence of his personal popularity amongst Hispanics.  He is the exception, not the rule, when it comes to the current GOP and their performance amongst Hispanic voters.  The GOP's real (or perceived) positions on Hispanic-related issues are different enough from the positions Bush espoused to discredit any claims that the Republicans can make to being competitive amongst Hispanic voters.

Unfortunately it appears the poor working class Hispanics prefer to remain lemmings and prefer to screw themselves economically. If the Republicans would try to turn there Immigration position into a positive I see no reason why large numbers of these hispanics wouldn't support that. Hispanics will be attracted by whoever does best for the economy and who supports the same social values as them not by blanket pandering to special interest groups and big business. Most Hispanics support English as the National Language, and oppose illegal Immigration. The problem is that Republicans have given up cause they assume the left is right and they can't win with this position.

[pogo stick]

Right, because Hispanics will always trend Democratic even though they voted 45% for Bush just five years ago. The only current minority groups that the Democrats really have a stranglehold indefinitely are blacks. Of course the point about the suburbs is obviously valid now, but the idea that Republicans are doomed because non-anglos are growing is extremely presumptuous.

Also Democrats have a solid majority of Jews. But that's changing slowly.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Also Democrats have a solid majority of Jews. But that's changing slowly.

No, it isn't.  Also, Jews are hardly an electoral force on par with Hispanics.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Also Democrats have a solid majority of Jews. But that's changing slowly.

No, it isn't.  Also, Jews are hardly an electoral force on par with Hispanics.

The only state where they are in large enough numbers are NY and FL. Well NY it will take a lot more then Jews to put the GOP over the top. In FL there are a large number of Jews but is more a question of whether the Dem gets 75% or 90% of them and how many turnout. Plus the only Jewish Republican thats succeeded in reaching prominence in Eric Cantor and I don't think he is representative of the broader Jewish community nor would a he be a good spokesperson for attracting that group.

[Vepres]

As long as Republicans take a nationalist approach to immigration and the related issues (i.e. English as the official language, zero tolerance for illegal immigrants) they will continue to lose ground with Hispanics

Hispanics are far from a one-issue group that votes en masse for the candidate that supports their issue (immigration). A majority of Hispanics born and raised in the US support the Republican's position on immigration (minus the xenophobia rhetoric). The first generation and second have party registrations that favor Democrats. But by the third generation, they are evenly split between the two parties and independents In fact, they voted in large groups for Democrats because of the mortgage crisis, which disproportionately affected them as they live in states with real estate bubbles (Arizona, Nevada, California).

So, as the mortgage crisis is solved and more Hispanics born in the US enter the electorate, they will become less and less distinguishable from western and Floridian whites.

[Smash255]

Right, because Hispanics will always trend Democratic even though they voted 45% for Bush just five years ago. The only current minority groups that the Democrats really have a stranglehold indefinitely are blacks. Of course the point about the suburbs is obviously valid now, but the idea that Republicans are doomed because non-anglos are growing is extremely presumptuous.

Also Democrats have a solid majority of Jews. But that's changing slowly.

Based off what exactly??

[pbrower2a]

Also Democrats have a solid majority of Jews. But that's changing slowly.

No, it isn't.  Also, Jews are hardly an electoral force on par with Hispanics.

The only state where they are in large enough numbers are NY and FL. Well NY it will take a lot more then Jews to put the GOP over the top. In FL there are a large number of Jews but is more a question of whether the Dem gets 75% or 90% of them and how many turnout. Plus the only Jewish Republican thats succeeded in reaching prominence in Eric Cantor and I don't think he is representative of the broader Jewish community nor would a he be a good spokesperson for attracting that group.

If the state is close enough, like Indiana or North Carolina in 2008, the Jewish vote could be the margin.

[minionofmidas]

Obviously, the deck may be stacked after 2010, depending how that election cycle goes at the state level.

You know what I'm talking about.

[Verily]

As long as Republicans take a nationalist approach to immigration and the related issues (i.e. English as the official language, zero tolerance for illegal immigrants) they will continue to lose ground with Hispanics

Hispanics are far from a one-issue group that votes en masse for the candidate that supports their issue (immigration). A majority of Hispanics born and raised in the US support the Republican's position on immigration (minus the xenophobia rhetoric). The first generation and second have party registrations that favor Democrats. But by the third generation, they are evenly split between the two parties and independents In fact, they voted in large groups for Democrats because of the mortgage crisis, which disproportionately affected them as they live in states with real estate bubbles (Arizona, Nevada, California).

So, as the mortgage crisis is solved and more Hispanics born in the US enter the electorate, they will become less and less distinguishable from western and Floridian whites.

This... uh... simply isn't true. Third generation Hispanics are just as Democratic or more than their earlier-generation counterparts. This is partially because third-generation Cubans in the New York area are much, much more Democratic than the first- and second-generation Cubans in South Florida.

There are relatively few third-generation Hispanics aside from Cubans and a few other select groups, so they tend to be heavily affected by patterns within specific groups. Multi-generation Hispanics in New Mexico and the Texas Panhandle range from moderately Democratic to very Republican, but they also have little historical connection to modern Hispanic immigrants. Hispanics in the Rio Grande Valley are very Democratic at all generations. Third-generation Cubans and Puerto Ricans in the New York area (where most third-generations of both groups are) are very Democratic, the former much more so than their more-recent immigrant counterparts in South Florida.

Overall the pattern is certainly not for increasing Republican-ness with generations, though like I said the Hispanic groups with substantial third-generation populations are probably not representative of what third-generation Hispanics will look like twenty or fifty years in the future simply because they have very different backgrounds from what future third-generation Hispanics will. (And there is no unique pattern across these select groups anyway.)

[pbrower2a]

There is also much intermarriage between Hispanics and others -- most notably white non-Hispanics. Which is more influential? Which culture is more influential on a youth, and which shapes voting behavior?

The aversion that many white people have toward marrying blacks does not apply so strongly to marrying Hispanics.  Skin color is not culture.  Cultural habits are. I see multilingual packaging on consumer goods. The assimilation goes both ways with such things as party favors. I noticed a pan which was said to be designed for making lasagna -- and lazana (I don't have the tilde above the "n"). Lasagna is of course not native to any Latin-American culture unless one speaks of persons of Italian origin.   

 

[Vepres]

As long as Republicans take a nationalist approach to immigration and the related issues (i.e. English as the official language, zero tolerance for illegal immigrants) they will continue to lose ground with Hispanics

Hispanics are far from a one-issue group that votes en masse for the candidate that supports their issue (immigration). A majority of Hispanics born and raised in the US support the Republican's position on immigration (minus the xenophobia rhetoric). The first generation and second have party registrations that favor Democrats. But by the third generation, they are evenly split between the two parties and independents In fact, they voted in large groups for Democrats because of the mortgage crisis, which disproportionately affected them as they live in states with real estate bubbles (Arizona, Nevada, California).

So, as the mortgage crisis is solved and more Hispanics born in the US enter the electorate, they will become less and less distinguishable from western and Floridian whites.

This... uh... simply isn't true. Third generation Hispanics are just as Democratic or more than their earlier-generation counterparts. This is partially because third-generation Cubans in the New York area are much, much more Democratic than the first- and second-generation Cubans in South Florida.

I know I'm being hypocritical by asking this but, citation please?

Whoops, I'm wrong. The study that I was referencing was from 2005 I believe. A more recent one conducted in 2007 showed that generation had little to do with partisan id.

Perhaps Colorado Latinos are more conservative than their border state counter parts? My personal experience with Latinos has been far different than many polls and other people suggest.

Edit: Did a little research and found that Colorado Latinos gave Obama his lowest margin of victory in the group of all states with significant Latino populations (excluding Arizona for favorite son effect, and Florida for Cuban influence).

[War on Want]

I would guess that Latinos that are descended from more recent immigrants are going to be pretty strongly Democratic, but that will vary depending on where they live. I am sure that Latinos in Texas that will be third generation in 2020 are going to be more conservative, than those in California. In the southwest recent immigrants are almost all Mexicans and so far Mexicans are one of the most Democratic Latino voting groups. I don't really see this changing quickly. By 2020 or 2030 there should be starting to be a pretty large amount of illegal immigrant descended second generation voters, with or without some form of amnesty. This generation of voters will probably be unanimously Democratic for the most part.

What I am trying to say is that it will take 30 or 40 years for Latinos to become significantly more Republican. There are just too many recent immigrants and too much of a stigma against the Republican Party with Latinos among people born recently. Rush Limbaugh had approval ratings in the single digits among Latinos, and he is considered the face of the Republican narrowly in a gallup poll.

Another big problem for Republicans will be when the turnout of Mexican-Americans starts to increase in large amounts. I am beginning to think that this is inevitable and when this happens in large amounts it will have pretty huge effects on the Southwest. This hasn't really happened yet but when it does, the Democrats' dominance over parts of the Southwest should be assured.

[Vepres]

I would guess that Latinos that are descended from more recent immigrants are going to be pretty strongly Democratic, but that will vary depending on where they live. I am sure that Latinos in Texas that will be third generation in 2020 are going to be more conservative, than those in California. In the southwest recent immigrants are almost all Mexicans and so far Mexicans are one of the most Democratic Latino voting groups. I don't really see this changing quickly. By 2020 or 2030 there should be starting to be a pretty large amount of illegal immigrant descended second generation voters, with or without some form of amnesty. This generation of voters will probably be unanimously Democratic for the most part.

What I am trying to say is that it will take 30 or 40 years for Latinos to become significantly more Republican. There are just too many recent immigrants and too much of a stigma against the Republican Party with Latinos among people born recently. Rush Limbaugh had approval ratings in the single digits among Latinos, and he is considered the face of the Republican narrowly in a gallup poll.

Another big problem for Republicans will be when the turnout of Mexican-Americans starts to increase in large amounts. I am beginning to think that this is inevitable and when this happens in large amounts it will have pretty huge effects on the Southwest. This hasn't really happened yet but when it does, the Democrats' dominance over parts of the Southwest should be assured.

I think there is hope for Republicans if they support a guest-worker program. This way, they don't reward people for breaking the law, but they help those who want to make their families life in Mexico or where ever better.

[War on Want]

I would guess that Latinos that are descended from more recent immigrants are going to be pretty strongly Democratic, but that will vary depending on where they live. I am sure that Latinos in Texas that will be third generation in 2020 are going to be more conservative, than those in California. In the southwest recent immigrants are almost all Mexicans and so far Mexicans are one of the most Democratic Latino voting groups. I don't really see this changing quickly. By 2020 or 2030 there should be starting to be a pretty large amount of illegal immigrant descended second generation voters, with or without some form of amnesty. This generation of voters will probably be unanimously Democratic for the most part.

What I am trying to say is that it will take 30 or 40 years for Latinos to become significantly more Republican. There are just too many recent immigrants and too much of a stigma against the Republican Party with Latinos among people born recently. Rush Limbaugh had approval ratings in the single digits among Latinos, and he is considered the face of the Republican narrowly in a gallup poll.

Another big problem for Republicans will be when the turnout of Mexican-Americans starts to increase in large amounts. I am beginning to think that this is inevitable and when this happens in large amounts it will have pretty huge effects on the Southwest. This hasn't really happened yet but when it does, the Democrats' dominance over parts of the Southwest should be assured.

I think there is hope for Republicans if they support a guest-worker program. This way, they don't reward people for breaking the law, but they help those who want to make their families life in Mexico or where ever better.

Maybe, the problem with the guest-worker program is that it will depress wages of Latinos already living in the United States, while some form of amnesty wouldn't depress wages in the same. I remember that 65% of Latinos want amnesty of some form too, so the Republicans definitley have some major problems on their hands.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would guess that Latinos that are descended from more recent immigrants are going to be pretty strongly Democratic, but that will vary depending on where they live. I am sure that Latinos in Texas that will be third generation in 2020 are going to be more conservative, than those in California. In the southwest recent immigrants are almost all Mexicans and so far Mexicans are one of the most Democratic Latino voting groups. I don't really see this changing quickly. By 2020 or 2030 there should be starting to be a pretty large amount of illegal immigrant descended second generation voters, with or without some form of amnesty. This generation of voters will probably be unanimously Democratic for the most part.

What I am trying to say is that it will take 30 or 40 years for Latinos to become significantly more Republican. There are just too many recent immigrants and too much of a stigma against the Republican Party with Latinos among people born recently. Rush Limbaugh had approval ratings in the single digits among Latinos, and he is considered the face of the Republican narrowly in a gallup poll.

Another big problem for Republicans will be when the turnout of Mexican-Americans starts to increase in large amounts. I am beginning to think that this is inevitable and when this happens in large amounts it will have pretty huge effects on the Southwest. This hasn't really happened yet but when it does, the Democrats' dominance over parts of the Southwest should be assured.

I think there is hope for Republicans if they support a guest-worker program. This way, they don't reward people for breaking the law, but they help those who want to make their families life in Mexico or where ever better.

Maybe, the problem with the guest-worker program is that it will depress wages of Latinos already living in the United States, while some form of amnesty wouldn't depress wages in the same. I remember that 65% of Latinos want amnesty of some form too, so the Republicans definitley have some major problems on their hands.

The only thing I see that could possibly pass with the bulk of Republicans(and no I don't mean McCain, Graham etc) is if the Pence-Hutchinson plan were revived and combined with both Democrat Heath Shuler's SAVE Act, and another bill beefing up interior enforcement as well as enforcement on the border. This would be the only compromise that could work and get my support, Pence-Hutchinson had a path to legalization with a vague touchback requirement that could be watered down if necessary but combined with the SAVE act would mean it has real enforcement mechanisms and not the half measures promised in the past two phony compromises.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Right, because Hispanics will always trend Democratic even though they voted 45% for Bush just five years ago. The only current minority groups that the Democrats really have a stranglehold indefinitely are blacks. Of course the point about the suburbs is obviously valid now, but the idea that Republicans are doomed because non-anglos are growing is extremely presumptuous.

You do realize that the article is about more than just racial demographics? Even if we're to accept your argument that Hispanics are not going to be solidly Democratic for the foreseeable future, this article is about more than that, it's about white voters declining, it's about young voters becoming increasingly Democratic, more diverse, less religious, it's about the decline of working class whites, which helps Democrats, it's about Democrats making gains among the more educated crowd.

The article here is a broader analysis of trends over the last couple decades and an increasing geographic, ideological, and racial divide that favors the Democrats in almost every way. I've talked about this before. Republicans have a long way to go before they can return to power again in a constant, powerful, sustained way.

Also, I think it's important to remember, as I said in my post I linked to above, that past Republican dominance wasn't really all that strong in comparison to the Democratic strength right now. Democrats at their strongest now are double the strength of the strongest past Republican Senate majority, and around triple the strength of the strongest Republican House of Representatives majority. Republicans basically got lucky in a series of elections, and were kept from losing power because of 9/11. Had 9/11 not happened and Bush's term continued in the lackluster way it was heading at the time, Republicans would have continued to lose power (as they had been doing basically since 1996) and Bush may very well have lost re-election. (And an important thing to keep in mind was that Bush lost the popular vote, despite narrowly "winning" in 2000.)

In short: Demographic, geographic, and ideological trends are going against the Republicans in every conceivable way, and Republican strength at it's strongest has been consistently weaker than Democratic strength at it's strongest because of this country's historical usual Democratic lean over the last 80 years. (Congressionally.)

[Alexander Hamilton]

Two elections isn't a trend, people. Just because Hispanics have "trended" Democratic in 06 and 08 is meaningless, as recent as 04 they were "trending" Republican. There are too many factors to take into account that make us unable to determine whether this is a long-tern trend.

[pbrower2a]

Two elections isn't a trend, people. Just because Hispanics have "trended" Democratic in 06 and 08 is meaningless, as recent as 04 they were "trending" Republican. There are too many factors to take into account that make us unable to determine whether this is a long-tern trend.

One trend always merits watching: the voting of the youngest voters. Basic personalities and attitudes change little over life. If young voters tend to be more conservative than older voters (1980s) on economics and foreign policy they will tend to be more conservative than the general public,  then they are more likely to vote for conservative politicians throughout their lives. As older, more liberal-leaning voters die off the electorate becomes more conservative. (Youth will be more liberal than their elders on sexuality irrespective of their values on economics and foreign policy but become more conservative as their kids become teenagers -- I wonder why). If youth lean liberal in a country split about 50-50 liberal-conservative, then the young, more liberal voters will supplant older voters slightly more  conservative who die off. Such tends to make a more liberal-leaning electorate for a few years.

That is the trend. It's possible to believe that as the youngest generation of voters develops a stake in the economy it might become more conservative -- which will happen when the current young voters start professional practices, when the businesses that they start begin turning profitable (and tempting to taxing authorities), enter management in business, and start accumulating savings. Then they might find inflation a threat to their wealth, regulation a pain, and "pro-business, anti-labor" policies compatible with their economic lot. Such of course has yet to happen. Most young adults with professional and even clerical jobs have large student loans to pay off, so they are unlikely to see inflation as much bane as deliverance.

The trend of Latinos to the Democratic Party in 2006 and 2008 may reflect one thing: relative youth. Although new Latino citizens may be of all ages, those are not the sole story in voting practices. Many have been citizens from birth or childhood, and they get to vote at age 18. Young Latino voters may be an exaggeration of the trend of voting among youth.   

[HAnnA MArin County]

Two elections isn't a trend, people. Just because Hispanics have "trended" Democratic in 06 and 08 is meaningless, as recent as 04 they were "trending" Republican. There are too many factors to take into account that make us unable to determine whether this is a long-tern trend.

One trend always merits watching: the voting of the youngest voters. Basic personalities and attitudes change little over life. If young voters tend to be more conservative than older voters (1980s) on economics and foreign policy they will tend to be more conservative than the general public,  then they are more likely to vote for conservative politicians throughout their lives. As older, more liberal-leaning voters die off the electorate becomes more conservative. (Youth will be more liberal than their elders on sexuality irrespective of their values on economics and foreign policy but become more conservative as their kids become teenagers -- I wonder why). If youth lean liberal in a country split about 50-50 liberal-conservative, then the young, more liberal voters will supplant older voters slightly more  conservative who die off. Such tends to make a more liberal-leaning electorate for a few years.

That is the trend. It's possible to believe that as the youngest generation of voters develops a stake in the economy it might become more conservative -- which will happen when the current young voters start professional practices, when the businesses that they start begin turning profitable (and tempting to taxing authorities), enter management in business, and start accumulating savings. Then they might find inflation a threat to their wealth, regulation a pain, and "pro-business, anti-labor" policies compatible with their economic lot. Such of course has yet to happen. Most young adults with professional and even clerical jobs have large student loans to pay off, so they are unlikely to see inflation as much bane as deliverance.

The trend of Latinos to the Democratic Party in 2006 and 2008 may reflect one thing: relative youth. Although new Latino citizens may be of all ages, those are not the sole story in voting practices. Many have been citizens from birth or childhood, and they get to vote at age 18. Young Latino voters may be an exaggeration of the trend of voting among youth.   

Definitely agree about the youth phenomenon, and thank you for addressing it. It was highlighted by Barack Obama's campaign and ultimate election, but I think it goes deeper than that. If you look at all the exit polls, even among minorities - African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, etc. - Obama always did best among young voters 18-29 years of age. He also won the young white vote in a couple of states that he lost (Missouri and Montana - I believe a map was posted on the forum under a different thread) but ironically he lost the young white vote in states that he carried including Virginia, Florida, and New Mexico, but disregarding race, Obama won the national youth vote by a two-to-one margin over John McCain. That cannot be good news for the Republican Party, and I do agree that their coalition is shrinking and Democrats' is expanding.

If Republicans wish to make ground with my generation, they are going to have to moderate on their "values," especially regarding the social issues, because my generation is increasingly becoming more and more libertarian-leaning, but the reason I think we vote so solidly Democratic in recent elections is because we are turned off by the Republican rhetoric involving God, guns and gays. I'm not saying that all young people are a bunch of atheist hippies; we just don't vote with our Bibles and we really don't care what women do with their uterus or who people sleep with or what people put in their bodies. Roe v. Wade is never going to be overturned, same-sex marriage will become legalized over time, and the War on Drugs will eventually come to an end. These wedge issues play well with the Republican base of the "evangelical Christians" a.k.a. the Bible thumping hicks and rednecks, but they are fortunately dying off so what happens when THEY become the minority and when they cannot win elections by talking about the "sanctity" of life and marriage and other mumbo-jumbo? Not a good thing at all.

My hypothesis is that if the Republican Party continues to be driven by conservative right-wing talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, etc. who alienate, demonize, bash and label everyone who disagrees with them as "socialists," "liberals," "idiots," "Godless," etc., that leaves no room for moderation, and my generation will become a faithful voting bloc of the Democrats nearly or in as much as African Americans have. Furthermore, if the Religious Right of the party is not silenced or at least compromises on their values, it is going to turn off youth even more. Calling people "sinners," "perverts," "deviants," "immoral," and telling them "You're going to Hell!" if they support a woman's right to choose or marriage equality isn't exactly a good way to get votes, especially young voters who are already skeptical about organized religion and its inevitably waning influence in politics.

Government + Religion = Disaster. That's all I have to say regarding this. Religion is not the answer to our problems; religion is the problem.

[pbrower2a]

...If you look at all the exit polls, even among minorities - African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, etc. - Obama always did best among young voters 18-29 years of age. He also won the young white vote in a couple of states that he lost (Missouri and Montana - I believe a map was posted on the forum under a different thread) but ironically he lost the young white vote in states that he carried including Virginia, Florida, and New Mexico, but disregarding race, Obama won the national youth vote by a two-to-one margin over John McCain. That cannot be good news for the Republican Party, and I do agree that their coalition is shrinking and Democrats' is expanding.

The GOP must win back a significant part of the vote of people born between 1979 and 1994, or else it will have a long time in the minority, often in places that it has considered safe for decades (like Indiana and Virginia). Those age cohorts may revert some toward the norm when they are in their forties and fifties, but that will not be fast enough to return the Republican Party from a party of aging white people. Such people will largely revile George W. Bush as long as they are alive in large numbers as voters, which means until at least the 2060s. The oldest among them are surely teaching school and shaping attitudes of teenagers who take learning seriously, and it won't be long before many start entering politics -- largely, I figure, as Democrats.

Sure, they will be more responsive to ideology than to partisan identity, so special interests within the GOP will still be burned should the GOP become the party that includes those who think that Obama doesn't or didn't go fast enough.         

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not simply "God"; it's a description of God that few educated people can accept. The age group in question believes that science has more means of solving some of the great problems in life (let us say, prediction of earthquakes and mitigation of their damage) than does  appeasement of a "God angry at sinners". If the Big One strikes San Francisco, then the cause will be in stresses along a fault line than the presence of so many gays. I find Mendelian genetics, Darwinian evolution, Freud's theories of the subconscious, Einstein's relativity, and Wegener's theory of continental drift far more useful  than any guilt trips.

As for sex education (a supposedly "un-Godly" practice), what is the alternative? "Doin' what comes natcher'ly"? Or relying upon pornography? We can make sex education both rational and moral it must be both, and that relies upon setting a firm foundation in science.

Guns? We Democrats need to make clear that we are against the sorts of firearms that no hunters would ever want -- and that we are more reliable protectors of the environment in which sport hunters hunt. People who stick up convenience stores and restaurants aren't sport hunters. The four most common circumstances that result in murder are family arguments, bar-room brawls, armed robberies, and drug dealing. Because armed robberies are rarer than the other three, they must be unusually deadly. Let's make armed robbeery more difficult.

Gays? I have no problem with homosexuality so long as we both keep our pants up and zipped in each others' presence.     

My hypothesis is that if the Republican Party continues to be driven by conservative right-wing talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, etc. who alienate, demonize, bash and label everyone who disagrees with them as "socialists," "liberals," "idiots," "Godless," etc., that leaves no room for moderation, and my generation will become a faithful voting bloc of the Democrats nearly or in as much as African Americans have. Furthermore, if the Religious Right of the party is not silenced or at least compromises on their values, it is going to turn off youth even more. Calling people "sinners," "perverts," "deviants," "immoral," and telling them "You're going to Hell!" if they support a woman's right to choose or marriage equality isn't exactly a good way to get votes, especially young voters who are already skeptical about organized religion and its inevitably waning influence in politics.

Young adults are definitely not hippies, and if they are more atheist than their parents, maybe it is because they saw too much of the religious clowns on TV. If they are religious they want their religion to respect reason and intellect.