|
Forums Terrorist posted:So what's up with the Permanent Republican Majority thing, I thought demographics were dooming them to a slow lingering death We're currently in the slow part. If you want a picture of the future, California is probably the best place to look.
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 14:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 08:47 |
|
|
tsa posted:There are certainly demographic problems, but they are far off and things could change in that time which makes them irrelevant. Say the millennials turn out to be a lot more conservative upon hitting 30 then previous generations or 3rd+ generation hispanics swing to the right. You're using "conservative" as a one dimensional axis, though. Maybe they are more conservative about economic issues than their parents and grandparents (although being saddled with lots of debt tends to stymie that trend), but that doesn't mean they'll vote for the party that is basically explicitly white supremacist, it just means they'll make the Democrats more conservative.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I think that analysis of Hispanics basically assumes that Republicans solve the problem of the immigration rhetoric, at which point you probably would see a greater split of the hispanic vote. Well, the issue with that is that immigration rhetoric is fairly constant, only changing with the demographic migrating. To "fix" it you either have to have a new ethnicity migrate in large numbers or you have to stop migration of Hispanics. Really their best bet would've been to establish a separate identity of "Mexican-American" vs "Mexican" (and so on for the other nationalities) but that ship sailed with LULAC in the 40s-60s.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:There's also the possibility that the generation after the millennials, a generation who knew not Bush, might not be nearly as friendly to the Democrats. Isn't the standard definition of millennial born 1982-1995? There are already members of the post-millennial generation voting and that number is just going to grow. There's not really a standard definition but I think most people know it as 1980-2000 or so. Also, as long as the Republicans continue to be the party of white supremacy the (increasingly less white) younger generations aren't going to go over to them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Yeah, it's definitely possible that those who were too young to remember the Bush years could be less friendly to the Democrats; I heard it's the case with a lot of British millenial voters, who were much too young to remember Thatcher but remember Blair. 18-24 year olds voted least often for the Torys in 2010 though and had the smallest increase compared with 2005 (55-64 had a decrease).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Then no doubt, we are entering a permanent era of Democrat dominance at the Federal level! Between e: Hell in the 72 years between the start of Lincoln's presidency (and the Republican Party) and the start of FDR's you had 3 Democratic presidents, serving a combined 12 years, or 17%. computer parts has issued a correction as of 22:24 on Nov 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:This may be a silly question, but why do the Democrats have so few good candidates, in so many states? I keep hearing about how the Dems in Florida, Arizona, Wisconsin, etc., have a weak bench that's costing them a lot of races they could otherwise win. Why? And, is anything being done to ensure that they don't have this issue in the future? The Democratic Party as a whole has not focused on local and state elections that much and that's how you develop state candidates. Also until recently a lot of those states were not very competitive so they atrophied (compare with the Republican Party of Hawaii).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
tsa posted:I'm not convinced at all that millennials will be a very powerful leftward force once they get older. Sure they'll keep social liberalism, everyone loves gay people and weed. Economically, it's really not there. Young people voting in droves for Obama was mostly a function of Bush hatred and a neat flashy advertising campaign with excellent web presence focused on a superstar than any actual focus on the issues or left wing beliefs. Not much different than how boy bands were/are promoted to these age groups. This is exactly why this group is non-existent during the midterms. You have to focus on a bunch of different races and can't just promote one star to gather around. It's also lot more boring/wonky and millennials simply don't have an attention span. Millennials are less white and that alone will tip the scales, regardless of what Wendy Davis's campaign may tell you otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:For example, you can't say the Kennedys' presence wasn't at least partially to credit for why Massachusetts turned into one of the bluest states. At the state level they're not.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:Why, top 2 is great? It resulted in Democrats being screwed ONCE (in a race that got corrected 2 years later) but at the same time people forget about all the good it has done and can do. Top 2 makes the straw man about third parties splitting voters into a reality.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
Party list voting is currently banned due to an anti-voter suppression law so you'd have to fix that first.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
Nth Doctor posted:This map really annoys me, mostly because Appalachia is comprised of mostly not the Appalachians. And yet New Jersey is its own subculture.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
DivineCoffeeBinge posted:I know you can run for both Senate and VP, but Senate and non-V P might be a different kettle of fish. Rand Paul's trying to argue that it's not.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 08:55
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Florida Dems, like Texas Dems, should just start drafting sports stars, gently caress. The honorable Senator Tim Tebow.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Uncle Wemus posted:Are all state level democratic parties terrible or only some Everywhere they're not in power they're utterly terrible and everywhere they are in power they're still terrible because full communism is not here.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Yeah. It's really hard to beat a sitting President. Although it's also really hard for a single party to hold the White House for a fourth consecutive term (ask Hoover or GHW Bush about that). Pretty much every reason why a third term going on fourth lost is a statistical aberration. Pretty much every presidential election itself is a statistical aberration.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 08:47 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:If the Democrats win the House in 2016 they should reauthorize the VRA, with an additional provision that effectively makes it so that covered states are forbidden from gerrymandering. There is really no way to word that though unless you go for an obscenity style "I know it when I see it" reading and just ram everything through a friendly SCOTUS. Also keep in mind that certain districts are gerrymandered at the behest of the people in that district, like Chicago's weird one that made a Hispanic majority district for the first time. What would be much easier and in line with the previous ruling is to have the VRA apply nationwide, since what you're apparently after is them loving with turnout.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2016 15:55
|
|