Republicans, where will you rebuild your coalition?

the makeout hobo · Aug 9, 2009

In electoral politics, demographics are destiny in many ways. We hate to look at people as groups, but they are a good way to examine the electorate. Since Nixon, the GOP has largely held power because of white, straight, protestant Christians who live in the rural areas, with inroads into the suburbs and hispanic communities. The Dems have had a coalition of minorities, college educated whites, queers, the unreligious, union members, etc. You can look at voting records for the last few decades to get more detail. But seeing how politically savvy everyone here is, I think you all know about how different groups fall.

The problem for the GOP, however, is that their base is shrinking. More and more Americans are something other than a white protestant straight Christian, and even in these groups, the Millennial generation is voting increasingly democratic*. Simply put, the democrats are winning on demographics alone. If the republicans don't find a way to expand their coalition, they're doomed to decades in the wilderness. Let me put it this way: if the demographic and how they vote had been the same in 1988 that they are today, there's a good chance Dukkakis would have won. My question to republicans on this site is this: where do you realistically see your base expanding? Because our base is growing just fine.

*For you that claim this is just a product of them being young, compare the youth vote for Mondale and Obama.

RightinNYC · Aug 9, 2009

the makeout hobo said:
In electoral politics, demographics are destiny in many ways. We hate to look at people as groups, but they are a good way to examine the electorate. Since Nixon, the GOP has largely held power because of white, straight, protestant Christians who live in the rural areas, with inroads into the suburbs and hispanic communities. The Dems have had a coalition of minorities, college educated whites, queers, the unreligious, union members, etc.

One of these things is not like the other...

-In 04, college graduates split evenly between Reps and Dems. The 08 gap was exactly the same gap as was seen among the population as a whole. If you limit that to only college-educated whites, it seems likely that that group is actually more favorable toward Reps than the nation as a whole. That's a segment of the population that Reps are more than capable of expanding among.

-Although they might not have much of a chance with union members, that population is shrinking faster than the population of WASPs in the suburbs.

-McCain actually did better than Bush did among gays despite the overall national shift toward the dems. A strong Rep candidate in a Rep-friendly year could easily break 30%.

You can look at voting records for the last few decades to get more detail. But seeing how politically savvy everyone here is, I think you all know about how different groups fall.

The problem for the GOP, however, is that their base is shrinking. More and more Americans are something other than a white protestant straight Christian, and even in these groups, the Millennial generation is voting increasingly democratic*. Simply put, the democrats are winning on demographics alone. If the republicans don't find a way to expand their coalition, they're doomed to decades in the wilderness. Let me put it this way: if the demographic and how they vote had been the same in 1988 that they are today, there's a good chance Dukkakis would have won. My question to republicans on this site is this: where do you realistically see your base expanding? Because our base is growing just fine.

The idea that either party will end up as a significant minority assumes that parties and their positions remain static. As society becomes more socially liberal, we will see the Reps shift more toward that stance so as to position itself closer to the middle. If society becomes more fiscally conservative, we will see the Dems do the same.

Oftencold · Aug 9, 2009

Coalition? We have positions, philosophies, practices and positions. Coalitions are for political prostitutes.

the makeout hobo · Aug 9, 2009

RightinNYC said:
One of these things is not like the other...

-In 04, college graduates split evenly between Reps and Dems. The 08 gap was exactly the same gap as was seen among the population as a whole. If you limit that to only college-educated whites, it seems likely that that group is actually more favorable toward Reps than the nation as a whole. That's a segment of the population that Reps are more than capable of expanding among.

-Although they might not have much of a chance with union members, that population is shrinking faster than the population of WASPs in the suburbs.

-McCain actually did better than Bush did among gays despite the overall national shift toward the dems. A strong Rep candidate in a Rep-friendly year could easily break 30%.

The idea that either party will end up as a significant minority assumes that parties and their positions remain static. As society becomes more socially liberal, we will see the Reps shift more toward that stance so as to position itself closer to the middle. If society becomes more fiscally conservative, we will see the Dems do the same.

Yes, but I'm asking where the GOP will expand. I think we can all agree that if they don't, demographic shifts will doom them. I'm most curious in where.

As to oftencold, if that's what you want to tell yourself, that's fine. But every time you have a major political party, they're going to form coalitions.

RightinNYC · Aug 9, 2009

the makeout hobo said:
Yes, but I'm asking where the GOP will expand. I think we can all agree that if they don't, demographic shifts will doom them. I'm most curious in where.

I don't see a need to "expand" among any group. If the republicans simply did 3-4% better among each of the groups you've mentioned, they would have won the last election.

Union members, college educated whites, and gays are not exactly expanding"groups. While the number of minorities in the country is increasing, that's primarily among hispanics, who are by no means tied to the democratic party in the same way that blacks are.

the makeout hobo · Aug 9, 2009

RightinNYC said:
I don't see a need to "expand" among any group. If the republicans simply did 3-4% better among each of the groups you've mentioned, they would have won the last election.

Union members, college educated whites, and gays are not exactly expanding"groups. While the number of minorities in the country is increasing, that's primarily among hispanics, who are by no means tied to the democratic party in the same way that blacks are.

But whites are increasingly going dem anyways. Look at the millennials.

sam_w · Aug 9, 2009

the makeout hobo said:
But whites are increasingly going dem anyways. Look at the millennials.

Here is the ethnic breakdown for elections since 1992:

Year - Asians - Black - Hispanic - White
1992 - 31% - 83% - 61% - 39%
1996 - 43% - 84% - 72% - 43%
2000 - 54% - 90% - 62% - 42%
2004 - 58% - 88% - 56% - 41%
2008 - 62% - 95% - 67% - 43%

U.S. Census Population projections
2008 - 2050
Non-Hispanic whites - 66% - 46%
Hispanic - 15% - 30%
African Americans - 14% - 15%
Asian American - 5% - 9%

Since Jimmy Carter lost to Ronald Reagan in 1980, the demographics have changed enough so that Democrats no longer need the white vote, and especially not the white male vote. What is interesting is the rise of Asians in both population and percentage lean towards (D).

Election Results

RightinNYC · Aug 9, 2009

the makeout hobo said:
But whites are increasingly going dem anyways. Look at the millennials.

This conclusion is based off of the past few years, which were a period of Democrat resurgence and Republican decline. After the Dems **** things up for a few years, we'll see it shift back the other way.

Harshaw · Aug 9, 2009

"Conventional wisdom" always assumes the trend of the day is an inevitable straight line.

Bassman · Aug 9, 2009

RightinNYC said:
This conclusion is based off of the past few years, which were a period of Democrat resurgence and Republican decline. After the Dems **** things up for a few years, we'll see it shift back the other way.

But then again, how much destruction and misery do the Democrats have to cause before Conservatives can get in there and clean it up??

DarkWizard12 · Aug 9, 2009

What I want to look at is the asian vote...something isn't exactly right with those numbers.....

DrunkenAsparagus · Aug 9, 2009

Those stats don't mean that minorities will always vote Democrat. The GOP will bounce back. Americans aren't homogeneous in their beliefs. The party survived the 1912 Progressive split, Teapot Deome scandal, Hoover, losing 5 Presidential elections in a row, and Watergate. It'll survive the legacy of Bush

TOJ · Aug 9, 2009

Bassman said:
But then again, how much destruction and misery do the Democrats have to cause before Conservatives can get in there and clean it up??

The idea that the Repubs will clean up anything is ludicrous. Any programs put into place will be permanent.

.

Bassman · Aug 9, 2009

TOJ said:
The idea that the Repubs will clean up anything is ludicrous. Any programs put into place will be permanent.

.

Unfortunately. This is why we need REAL Conservatives in the GOP. Not these mealymouth Liberal RINOs

DarkWizard12 · Aug 9, 2009

TOJ said:
The idea that the Repubs will clean up anything is ludicrous. Any programs put into place will be permanent.

.

very unfortunately, that, i fear, is correct.

Bassman · Aug 9, 2009

I wonder what kind of short term vs. long term impact would be if actual Conservatives were elected and implemented measures to reduce the size of the Federal Government and return it to the Constitutional model as prescribed??

TOJ · Aug 9, 2009

Bassman said:
I wonder what kind of short term vs. long term impact would be if actual Conservatives were elected and implemented measures to reduce the size of the Federal Government and return it to the Constitutional model as prescribed??

You are on the wrong side of history. The US has been moving inexorably left for quite some time. The good citiznes of the US have discovered they can vote themselves goodies from the public trough and they are not likely to go back.

.

Bassman · Aug 9, 2009

TOJ said:
You are on the wrong side of history. The US has been moving inexorably left for quite some time. The good citiznes of the US have discovered they can vote themselves goodies from the public trough and they are not likely to go back.

.

sad to say, that spells the epitath of the United States of America! Welcome to the all new United Soviet States of Amerikka, Komrades!

RightinNYC · Aug 10, 2009

Bassman said:
Unfortunately. This is why we need REAL Conservatives in the GOP. Not these mealymouth Liberal RINOs

Yea, because the way to really fix the GOP is to become a minority party wth 25% of the vote.

Oftencold · Aug 10, 2009

TOJ said:
The idea that the Repubs will clean up anything is ludicrous. Any programs put into place will be permanent.

.

Doubtful. So much of what the current Administration and Congress are attempting appears to be of dubious constitutionality, that I think we can expect the Courts to rule a lot of it to be unconstitutional.

Bootsavich · Aug 10, 2009

the makeout hobo said:
My question to republicans on this site is this: where do you realistically see your base expanding? Because our base is growing just fine.

The fiscally responsible, the capitalists, the enterprising, the economically independent, the self-accountable, the hard working, and all the others that the Democrats have been trodding over for a while now. What race or background they will come from? I don't really care.

Bassman said:
I wonder what kind of short term vs. long term impact would be if actual Conservatives were elected and implemented measures to reduce the size of the Federal Government and return it to the Constitutional model as prescribed??

We need a President who will hold a strict policy:

Veto any non-defense appropriation bills without a balanced budget, except in times of war.*

*Requiring a Congressional declaration of war.

TOJ · Aug 10, 2009

Oftencold said:
Doubtful. So much of what the current Administration and Congress are attempting appears to be of dubious constitutionality, that I think we can expect the Courts to rule a lot of it to be unconstitutional.

You have to be joking!!! Political speech is clearly supposed to be protected by the US Constitution, yet the Court gave the go-ahead to McCain-Feingold.

The US Constitution only means what five old people happen to believe at any particular time. Do you think, after Prez Doofus's stint, the Court will be more inclined to care about what the Document actually says?

.

PeteEU · Aug 10, 2009

Bootsavich said:
We need a President who will hold a strict policy:

Veto any non-defense appropriation bills without a balanced budget, except in times of war.*

*Requiring a Congressional declaration of war.

Why non-defence? That would mean projects the military do not need or want, would be kept alive or born to feed the corrupt politicians.. F22 anyone?

rhinefire · Aug 10, 2009

How many of the left are even literate and legal? The left have seized the concept Marx invented, gather the stupid and tell them they matter. Works every time, ask Mao.

liblady · Aug 10, 2009

what exactly is a REAL conservative?

Republicans, where will you rebuild your coalition?

Rockin' In The Free World

Girthless

Rockin' In The Free World

Girthless

Rockin' In The Free World

Well-known member

Girthless

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Next we have #12. The Larch

Sir Poop A lot

Devourer of Poor Children

Next we have #12. The Larch

Sir Poop A lot

Next we have #12. The Larch

Next we have #12. The Larch

Girthless

Member

pirate lover

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency