emerging democratic majority book

[freepcrusher]

I have to admit to not reading the book. How well do you think the book has aged? I feel like the argument that college educated whites and increasing minority populations would help the democratic party win more elections is correct - but they didn't realize how much of an effect it would have on other elements within the party.

Like it probably had to do with Obama being in the whitehouse and the headwinds therefore not being in our favor - but it felt like the period from 2010-2016 was pretty blackpilling for the democrats with the rural areas continuing to shift R and the suburban trend mostly stabilizing.

After Trump won, I sort of found it interesting to see how future democratic majorities would be built. I kind of feel like the path the democratic victory in 2018 was akin to the scene in a movie where there's a giant canyon separating two peaks and a bunch of warriors are chasing you and you basically have to gamble and go off the ramp at full speed and hope you make it to the other side. Or another metaphor is basically that the opposing team is stacking eight dudes "in the box" and you basically have to pass every down and hope it works.

I kind of feel like the whole "coalition of the ascendent" thing was akin to a luxury and not a necessity. It was something that would help you win - but not something you would depend on wholly. It seems like the coalition of the ascendent thing involved getting numbers amongst certain demographics in 2018 that Judis and Texeira would have found unthinkable when they were writing the book 15+ years ago. Another analogy is an investigator becoming too reliant on forensics and lacking in old fashioned police work.

But is being so heavily dependent on certain groups sustainable? There's also the fact that Trump was a uniquely bad fit for suburban areas and places in general that rely on the creative class. If there was a president Kasich or Rubio - would dems have had a pathway to 218? This is to say nothing of the path to a senate majority either.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Written a decade too early. Would have made a lot more sense to have published something like it for the first time after the 2018 elections.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The biggest thing that Kevin Phillips had going for him in the Emerging Republican Majority was a basic understanding of what areas would be lost as well as gained. I have not read Emerging Democratic Majority so I cannot judge it directly on what it included. However I recall it mentioning Missouri and similar places as being good for Democrats.

I think in general it was too early and it failed to account for more radical shifts in the electorate and the loss of certain places that seemed unthinkable back then, as well as gains in places that seemed unlikely such as Georgia and Texas, which back then were reaching their peak period of Republicanism.

It should be noted also that Phillips himself ran into problems and he never envisioned the loss of the secular suburbs, because he never envisioned the rise of the religious right and the cultural realignment that came along in its wake. Phillips also didn't like the Bush clan at all and didn't foresee Reagan becoming President. Phillips saw the loss of "silk stocking suburbs" and declines in places like the Philly Main Line" but not the wholesale decline of the GOP in places like the suburbs of LA, Chicago and NYC. Finally, Phillips generally doesn't seem to place much value or importance on generational change and that was critical to understanding why changes in the South took so long and thus while even in the 1990's and 2000's, West Virginia and Arkansas were still voting Democratic, which is quite a while later than he had envisioned. He also credited Democratic success in VA solely to the black vote as opposed to generational change among whites and in migration to NOVA.

So in terms of being predictive of the future, "Emerging Republican Majority" likewise had great problems once the changes played out and voters started reacting in kind to those changes and because conservatism evolved in a way that Phillips didn't foresee, a number of his predictions ended up being off like Southern Illinois combining with the Chicago burbs to solidify Illinois for the GOP.

[Person Man]

The biggest thing that Kevin Phillips had going for him in the Emerging Republican Majority was a basic understanding of what areas would be lost as well as gained. I have not read Emerging Democratic Majority so I cannot judge it directly on what it included. However I recall it mentioning Missouri and similar places as being good for Democrats.

I think in general it was too early and it failed to account for more radical shifts in the electorate and the loss of certain places that seemed unthinkable back then, as well as gains in places that seemed unlikely such as Georgia and Texas, which back then were reaching their peak period of Republicanism.

It should be noted also that Phillips himself ran into problems and he never envisioned the loss of the secular suburbs, because he never envisioned the rise of the religious right and the cultural realignment that came along in its wake. Phillips also didn't like the Bush clan at all and didn't foresee Reagan becoming President. Phillips saw the loss of "silk stocking suburbs" and declines in places like the Philly Main Line" but not the wholesale decline of the GOP in places like the suburbs of LA, Chicago and NYC. Finally, Phillips generally doesn't seem to place much value or importance on generational change and that was critical to understanding why changes in the South took so long and thus while even in the 1990's and 2000's, West Virginia and Arkansas were still voting Democratic, which is quite a while later than he had envisioned. He also credited Democratic success in VA solely to the black vote as opposed to generational change among whites and in migration to NOVA.

So in terms of being predictive of the future, "Emerging Republican Majority" likewise had great problems once the changes played out and voters started reacting in kind to those changes and because conservatism evolved in a way that Phillips didn't foresee, a number of his predictions ended up being off like Southern Illinois combining with the Chicago burbs to solidify Illinois for the GOP.

So, he was predicting a map like this:
https://www.270towin.com/maps/4XZAg

Basically that every election in the late 20th century would be some sort of variant between 1976 and 1980.

At the moment it sounds like a reasonable hypothesis but its probably incredibly asinine:
Could have the Clinton campaign and presidency been where this potential timeline split off from this one?
Basically, the democrats "made peace" with cutting marginal tax rates and unionization rates by half, the current situation with education and retirement and adopted a peicemeal strategy to health care while looking for issues surrounding civil rights to center on.

Republicans can almost conversely claim a similar argument,.

[Skill and Chance]

It's overrated because it assumes too much, but the backlash has been so strong that the impact of population growth/decline and demographics on elections is probably underrated at this point.  You can tell a pretty coherent story of American history that goes like this:

18th Century Federalist rule -> Population growth/immigration into the South -> Era of Democratic dominance -> Population growth/immigration into the Northeast and especially Midwest ->  Rise of Republican party and era of Republican dominance -> transition from small farmers/rural business owners to industrial laborers in the North + increased settlement of the West + Great Migration of black people to the industrial cities -> era of Democratic dominance -> emergence of suburbs and their dramatic growth + urbanization and rapid emergence of non-agrarian wealth in the South + polarization by religion -> era of Republican dominance -> increasing secularization of suburbs + immigration and non-white population growth in South/Southwest + deindustrialization of the Midwest and inland Northeast -> whatever we have now, which seems unusually competitive by historical standards with how often control of the WH and Congress flips

 

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Constitution has always been conservative and the Framers wanted it to be so that women and minorities dont have much of a say so.

But in 2020, the Democratic majority will end the fillibuster once and for all and give DC the statehood, the voice it needs and give Dems 2 new Senators and a new Governor. That will make bigger states have more sway over smaller states in the Senate