GOP Doomed Demographically?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]hedo wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
hedo wrote:
The Dems were in bad shape after 2004. A lot of pundits said they were losing the title of a national party.

They pursued a 100% negative attack strategy and focused on Bush. It got to the point I don’t think even the Democratic leaders thought it would work but it did.

The problem now is they never expected to have to follow thru on some of the promises. Obama is screwed on that regard. He has to tow the moonbat line or face them head on.

I think a big backlash will occur. Maybe over the economy. Maybe a crisis or terrorist incident…who knows.

The GOP will be back. Younger and full of ideas. Think 1994.

You’re ignoring the fact that thanks to Bush the GOP is all but dead to people under the age of 30. The same goes for minorities. And note Buchanan’s electoral math.

I’m not ignoring it I’m discounting it as being relevant to the conclusions people are making.

After living through enough election cycles you realize the rhetoric is always the same and so are the predictions.

[/quote]

But the demographics aren’t and won’t be…

22

The article isn’t that bad.

CBS’s Schiefer asked McCain this “demographics” question around the time he won the nomination. Republicans are NOT creating and crafting policies that appeal to non-whites and it shows. If this continues where Republicans fail to appeal to minorities, yes, they will be demographically screwed.

I’m not sure I buy his tax-consumer overrepresented and tax-producer underrepresented argument, but I’d be intrigued to see some numbers.

And he’s completely correct that republicans are not appealing to young people. If the republicans continue to be the party that is “anti-gay”, “anti-black”, and “anti-abortion” party, yes, they’ll continue to lose votes amongst educated youth.

In short, the republicans should move away from the hyper-religious base and move towards their libertarian wing.

Oh, and I think that’s one more demographic that Republicans are losing. When I went canvasing for Obama a couple of months ago, I went with church-going, Southern, self-proclaimed evangelical-Christians.

They were more concerned about poverty and people than they were about abortion, however, which, for them, translated into joining the Democratic party. While evangelical christians are growing demographically (or were a few years ago when I looked it up) their ideologies are also changing, or broadening, I would say.

23

[quote]Sloth wrote:
hedo wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
hedo wrote:
The Dems were in bad shape after 2004. A lot of pundits said they were losing the title of a national party.

They pursued a 100% negative attack strategy and focused on Bush. It got to the point I don’t think even the Democratic leaders thought it would work but it did.

The problem now is they never expected to have to follow thru on some of the promises. Obama is screwed on that regard. He has to tow the moonbat line or face them head on.

I think a big backlash will occur. Maybe over the economy. Maybe a crisis or terrorist incident…who knows.

The GOP will be back. Younger and full of ideas. Think 1994.

You’re ignoring the fact that thanks to Bush the GOP is all but dead to people under the age of 30. The same goes for minorities. And note Buchanan’s electoral math.

I’m not ignoring it I’m discounting it as being relevant to the conclusions people are making.

After living through enough election cycles you realize the rhetoric is always the same and so are the predictions.

But the demographics aren’t and won’t be…
[/quote]

The fallacy that many fall victim to is the belief that demographics will remian as they are now and will simply expand along a linear path with no variables changing. In practice that never happens.

The bailout will blow up on the dems. The corruption of Frank and Dodd will surface. People will get tired of the evasiveness of Obama. Parties change and majorities ebb and flow. This is the first election for a lot of people. They will not stay Democrats and they likely will not support Obama more then once.

This really isn’t anything new other then the media being so in the tank for one candidate and tossing professional ethics aside. The Dems actually created a perfect storm for a turnover in 2010 and 2012. They have nobody else to blame and at present a lack of good ideas.

Remember the demographics 6 mos. ago based on population growth and industrialization said oil can only rise from $147bbl. It’s “impossible” based on the demographics for it to do anything else…indeed.

24

I would like to point out that religious mexican americans will be a gold mine for future GOP campaigns if they can connect with them. Stereotyping aside black people will probably never switch to voting republican en masse like they do for democrats in my lifetime, but the mexican population might.

25

Looking at polls, minority voters appear to be (as a group) MORE socially conservative than whites (as a group). And whites, while not energized this cycle, didn’t exactly abandon the GoP. The split between Dems and Repubs was about the same from the last election, no?

And, the McCain ticket seemed to get it’s only real bump when it DID bring onboard a social conservative. Of course later, Palin didn’t come off well informed in interviews, and McCain supported bailouts.

In short, seems to me that if you gut the social conservative platform, you get Libertarian Party Lite. And the party would probably descend to LP status.

26

[quote]hedo wrote:
Sloth wrote:
hedo wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
hedo wrote:
The Dems were in bad shape after 2004. A lot of pundits said they were losing the title of a national party.

They pursued a 100% negative attack strategy and focused on Bush. It got to the point I don’t think even the Democratic leaders thought it would work but it did.

The problem now is they never expected to have to follow thru on some of the promises. Obama is screwed on that regard. He has to tow the moonbat line or face them head on.

I think a big backlash will occur. Maybe over the economy. Maybe a crisis or terrorist incident…who knows.

The GOP will be back. Younger and full of ideas. Think 1994.

You’re ignoring the fact that thanks to Bush the GOP is all but dead to people under the age of 30. The same goes for minorities. And note Buchanan’s electoral math.

I’m not ignoring it I’m discounting it as being relevant to the conclusions people are making.

After living through enough election cycles you realize the rhetoric is always the same and so are the predictions.

But the demographics aren’t and won’t be…

The fallacy that many fall victim to is the belief that demographics will remian as they are now and will simply expand along a linear path with no variables changing. In practice that never happens.

The bailout will blow up on the dems. The corruption of Frank and Dodd will surface. People will get tired of the evasiveness of Obama. Parties change and majorities ebb and flow. This is the first election for a lot of people. They will not stay Democrats and they likely will not support Obama more then once.

This really isn’t anything new other then the media being so in the tank for one candidate and tossing professional ethics aside. The Dems actually created a perfect storm for a turnover in 2010 and 2012. They have nobody else to blame and at present a lack of good ideas.

Remember the demographics 6 mos. ago based on population growth and industrialization said oil can only rise from $147bbl. It’s “impossible” based on the demographics for it to do anything else…indeed.

[/quote]

The country is going to be majority “brown” within fifty years. The vast majority of those people will not be voting GOP, barring some major change. And I think you’re underestimating just how much damage Bush did to the Republican brand, puts McGovern or Carter on the other side to shame.

27

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Looking at polls, minority voters appear to be (as a group) MORE socially conservative than whites (as a group). And whites, while not energized this cycle, didn’t exactly abandon the GoP. The split between Dems and Repubs was about the same from the last election, no?

And, the McCain ticket seemed to get it’s only real bump when it DID bring onboard a social conservative. Of course later, Palin didn’t come off well informed in interviews, and McCain supported bailouts.

In short, seems to me that if you gut the social conservative platform, you get Libertarian Party Lite. And the party would probably descend to LP status.

[/quote]

Absolutely. We had this discussion on another thread with Damici a while back. A party of Rockefeller Republicans is a party without even a pretense of being a national majority.

28

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
The article isn’t that bad.

CBS’s Schiefer asked McCain this “demographics” question around the time he won the nomination. Republicans are NOT creating and crafting policies that appeal to non-whites and it shows. If this continues where Republicans fail to appeal to minorities, yes, they will be demographically screwed.

I’m not sure I buy his tax-consumer overrepresented and tax-producer underrepresented argument, but I’d be intrigued to see some numbers.
[/quote]
I really don’t think this is all that complicated. If you provide big gov’t services to a majority by taxing a minority, who is going to best represented? Who has the largest voting block?

anti black? please. The biggest problem with attracting young people is that most are not very smart. They have not reached a point in there lives or careers where they are able to see what gov’t takes from them.

Or they are not smart enough to know that Conservatives as a group are not anti black or anti gay. Among the many problems dip shit republicans have these days, i think abortion is certainly one of them.

Late term abortion is as disgusting as it gets but there should probably be some concessions made on embriotic stem cell research, morning after pill, early term abortion, etc.

I would agree with this but don’t really see it as all that prominent in the republican party. If it was, wouldn’t we have had Huckabee as our nominee. He wasn’t even really close.

29

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

And he’s completely correct that republicans are not appealing to young people. If the republicans continue to be the party that is “anti-gay”, “anti-black”, and “anti-abortion” party, yes, they’ll continue to lose votes amongst educated youth.

anti black? please. The biggest problem with attracting young people is that most are not very smart. They have not reached a point in there lives or careers where they are able to see what gov’t takes from them.

Or they are not smart enough to know that Conservatives as a group are not anti black or anti gay. [/quote]

The “” meant perceptions. How many blacks support Republicans? Why? If you answer “cuz they’re dumb” then you’re being ignorant. When republicans come up with policies that appeal to Blacks, they’ll receive a larger percentage of their vote. Period. Same with Hispanics. How many Black delegates were at the Republican convention? As a percentage? This is the point the article (and CBS’ Schiefer (sp?) were making).

“anti-gay”? You must be kidding me. Look at some of the gay threads on this site and look at those who attack forlife the hardest. Are these the “conservative” members? Look at the rhetoric coming out of many republican circles. I don’t know a single “log cabin republican.” Again, it’s simple, when Republicans start coming up with policies that appeal to the gay community, they will receive more votes. Right now they are perceived as “anti-gay” and with good cause.

As far as “young people are dumb”…please. Because someone disagrees with you does not make them “dumb.” Why don’t you try listening to what they say?

agreed

This is where I think we agree the most. The libertarian branch of the Republican party is where the Republicans should move towards. They have the best ideas coming out of the republican party right now by far. While I’m not a libertarian myself, I appreciate their take on things quite a bit.

As far as Huckabee, He had no chance of winning, this caused a split between Thompson and Huckabee. The hyper-religious have too much power in the republican party, IMO… Palin is the greatest example of this, I think. Would you have rather seen a Ron Paul VP nod (showing libertarian strength in the party) or a Palin nod (showing the strength of the hyper-religious conservative types). Hell, the damn republican party tried to block RP from even attending the convention! And then, if my memory holds, they had handlers for him and wouldn’t let him speak!

30

[quote]hedo wrote:
The Dems were in bad shape after 2004. A lot of pundits said they were losing the title of a national party.

They pursued a 100% negative attack strategy and focused on Bush. It got to the point I don’t think even the Democratic leaders thought it would work but it did.

The problem now is they never expected to have to follow thru on some of the promises. Obama is screwed on that regard. He has to tow the moonbat line or face them head on.

I think a big backlash will occur. Maybe over the economy. Maybe a crisis or terrorist incident…who knows.

The GOP will be back. Younger and full of ideas. Think 1994.[/quote]

Exactly, good ideas don’t die. Keeping what you make. Putting bad guys in jail. A law abiding citizen can defend himself.

You’re exactly right about Obama. A few weeks ago I got on the Andrew Wilkow sirius talk radio show and I told him Obama’s biggest problem is he can’t run anymore, he has to govern.

He’s been running for the presidency for over 20 years. now there’s nowhere left to run. He has to lead and govern. Platitudes and a controlled look how cool I am stutter won’t get it done.

I never liked the guy based on his voting record. Now he’ll have to do something, and the far left will be very disappointed. In fact, a whole lot of people are going to be disapointed when they find out everything isn’t free.

31

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Isis. wrote:
Sloth wrote:
According to Buchanan, the GoP is an aging, dying, and simply out procreated. Basically, a “red pool” overrepresented by whites and taxpayers. On the other hand, the “blue pool” of voters gains from the growing population of tax consumers and minorities (specifically immigrant populations, I believe). What’s the GoP to do?
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/is_the_party_over/

Um… change their redneck politics a little? You can still be a free-market, laissez-faire person without being an ignorant, uneducated religious freak. If Ron Paul was for real and had a little more support from the GOP, he could have won those elections.

I don’t see the blue pool getting excited about free-market principles. Why would I vote for a tax, and governemnt program, cutting free market type, when I don’t pay taxes and still get government services? Which is one of his points. [/quote]

Sorry, bud. Why don’t you check your demographics again. It’s a roughly 50% breakdown between Democrat and Repbulican support amoung those in high-income brackets. The Democrat party is not simply a party of those who don’t pay taxes and are looking for handouts. And plenty of such people support the GOP for religious or social policy reasons. There are also people who are more in line with moderate government, fiscal conservatism, and stream-lined programs who swing Democrat because they view GOP social policies as backwards and intrusive.

32

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Sorry, bud. Why don’t you check your demographics again. It’s a roughly 50% breakdown between Democrat and Repbulican support amoung those in high-income brackets. [/quote]

And?

33

[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sorry, bud. Why don’t you check your demographics again. It’s a roughly 50% breakdown between Democrat and Repbulican support amoung those in high-income brackets.

And?[/quote]

Your implication was that the Democratic base was made up of deadbeats who don’t pay taxes. Not the case. A second implications is that there aren’t fiscal moderates in the Democrat party who might not otherwise vote Republican without some of the more extreme religious elements and social policies. There are many.

34

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sorry, bud. Why don’t you check your demographics again. It’s a roughly 50% breakdown between Democrat and Repbulican support amoung those in high-income brackets.

And?

Your implication was that the Democratic base was made up of deadbeats who don’t pay taxes. Not the case. A second implications is that there aren’t fiscal moderates in the Democrat party who might not otherwise vote Republican without some of the more extreme religious elements and social policies. There are many.[/quote]

I implied no such thing. I implied “deadbeats” (tax consumers) aren’t going to vote Republican. The Democrat party having well off voters isn’t relevant. An entitlement beneficiary paying little to no taxes (perhaps even recieving a "tax credit) has no use for a fiscally conservative party.

35

[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sorry, bud. Why don’t you check your demographics again. It’s a roughly 50% breakdown between Democrat and Repbulican support amoung those in high-income brackets.

And?

Your implication was that the Democratic base was made up of deadbeats who don’t pay taxes. Not the case. A second implications is that there aren’t fiscal moderates in the Democrat party who might not otherwise vote Republican without some of the more extreme religious elements and social policies. There are many.

I implied no such thing. I implied “deadbeats” (tax consumers) aren’t going to vote Republican. The Democrat party having well off voters isn’t relevant. An entitlement beneficiary paying little to no taxes (perhaps even recieving a "tax credit) has no use for a fiscally conservative party. [/quote]

So what if they don’t? There are Democrats who are fiscally moderate or even fiscally conservative who don’t fit that bill. It’s relevant because the Republican party would appeal to many more who typically vote Democrat without some of its more extremist elements.

36

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

So what if they don’t? There are Democrats who are fiscally moderate or even fiscally conservative who don’t fit that bill. It’s relevant because the Republican party would appeal to many more who typically vote Democrat without some of its more extremist elements.[/quote]

What extremist elements?

37

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
hedo wrote:
Sloth wrote:
hedo wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
hedo wrote:
The Dems were in bad shape after 2004. A lot of pundits said they were losing the title of a national party.

They pursued a 100% negative attack strategy and focused on Bush. It got to the point I don’t think even the Democratic leaders thought it would work but it did.

The problem now is they never expected to have to follow thru on some of the promises. Obama is screwed on that regard. He has to tow the moonbat line or face them head on.

I think a big backlash will occur. Maybe over the economy. Maybe a crisis or terrorist incident…who knows.

The GOP will be back. Younger and full of ideas. Think 1994.

You’re ignoring the fact that thanks to Bush the GOP is all but dead to people under the age of 30. The same goes for minorities. And note Buchanan’s electoral math.

I’m not ignoring it I’m discounting it as being relevant to the conclusions people are making.

After living through enough election cycles you realize the rhetoric is always the same and so are the predictions.

But the demographics aren’t and won’t be…

The fallacy that many fall victim to is the belief that demographics will remian as they are now and will simply expand along a linear path with no variables changing. In practice that never happens.

The bailout will blow up on the dems. The corruption of Frank and Dodd will surface. People will get tired of the evasiveness of Obama. Parties change and majorities ebb and flow. This is the first election for a lot of people. They will not stay Democrats and they likely will not support Obama more then once.

This really isn’t anything new other then the media being so in the tank for one candidate and tossing professional ethics aside. The Dems actually created a perfect storm for a turnover in 2010 and 2012. They have nobody else to blame and at present a lack of good ideas.

Remember the demographics 6 mos. ago based on population growth and industrialization said oil can only rise from $147bbl. It’s “impossible” based on the demographics for it to do anything else…indeed.

The country is going to be majority “brown” within fifty years. The vast majority of those people will not be voting GOP, barring some major change. And I think you’re underestimating just how much damage Bush did to the Republican brand, puts McGovern or Carter on the other side to shame.[/quote]

Not expecting some sort of change whether it is the GOP or the voters would be highly unlikely. Assuming we can make the call accurately now is equally unlikely. The GOP should have been dead after Nixon. The Democrats after Carter.

50 years ago the Democrats were the segreationists in the south and a very pro defense party. Byrd was a Grand Wizard in the KKK. In 1958 nobody in their right mind would have said that the Dems would embrace abortion, support a nuclear “free” world, support spending us into banckruptcy or elect a black man as president. You would have been considered a fool to predict such things. Making predictions now about 30-50 years into the future is entertaining but not very insightful.

38

So, what is the message to win over minorities and tax consumers then, hedo? Pro AA? Amnesty? Universal health care? Federally funded “Urban” revitalization programs?

39

[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, what is the message to win over minorities and tax consumers then, hedo? Pro AA? Amnesty? Universal health care? Federally funded “Urban” revitalization programs?[/quote]

I don’t know. You can try and get all of them with those proposals. You could also go after those who have become middle class tax payers and have a vested interest in a thriving and growing economy that features personal responsibility. Just saying.

40

Religious fanaticism, Hate mongering, close mindedness, it?s all the Democrats fault, faux conservatism, I wonder why