• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Long term demographics

Long term demographics

  • republican party loses popularity and splits conservative votes with another party

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    20
Here it's depends what minority group it is but it's slowly turning more liberal with minorities sometimes the Conservatives win other times the Liberals or NDP. The Chinese, South Asian, and Natives are our largest groups. The Chinese and Natives usually vote NDP but the South Asians vote Conservative but that's changing. In the U.S. do you have large groups of Chinese and South Asians, if so what do they vote?
 
By 2040-2050 I expect we could see an electoral map look something like this:

View attachment 67136211

If that is the electoral map, then republicans are ****ed.

You said they will take the "rich" northeast, but even taking Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, New Jersey, Massachutes Deleware, Pensylvania, Maryland, and Virginia Republicans would still not win.

I imagine Republicans will lose a lot of elections in the future like Democrats did after the Andrew Johnson before they find a way to appeal to voters again. You said they will to become less social conservative, but people like Rick Santorum were supported by the middle age groups, and not the old. I do not think they will become libertarian, that is a white liberal pipe dream. Minorities tend to be more socially conservative than they are fiscally conservative.

I think it much more likely that Republicans start appealing to Hispanics. They will do that by toning down the their libertarian roots. While liberterianism is popular among some youth, it is not popular with the majority.
 
Last edited:
Don't believe it.

Look at where most of them come from - Mexico. Over the last 50 years, Mexico has largely voted right wing, and largely been a conservative country.

You want rich latinos living in the USA? OK, take a look at Miami. Take a look at the state of Florida. The hispanic vote is 50% Republican, 50% Democrat in Miami, and Romney will probably win in Florida.

Latinos see themselves as white, they don't consider themselves a minority any more than Italians are a minority.

I'm pretty sure La Raza disagrees.
 
Of course the GOP and the Democrats are going to change. You don't see too many segregationist Democrats or Stalwarts Republicans anymore. As the old guard in a party is voted out, dies, or retires, a new set of politicians come in with a new platform. On social issues we going to go left. I would be shocked if in 20 years we didn't have legal weed, gay marriage and some form of amnesty for illegals in all 50 states. As for foreign policy, I think that America will take a step back from its role as global hegemon as other countries grow wealthier and more capable of defending themselves. Economically, I have no idea. Depending on how we deal with our growing debt, we could either see the true end of "era of big government" or we could become more like Western Europe.
 
From your poll options, this is the most likely:


This is because the GOP's strategy of appealing exclusively to white people is a long-term political loser. At some point, the GOP is going to have to at least tone down the subtle and not-so-subtle racist crap and start appealing to a more diverse crowd. But I think that eventually they WILL do this, simply because they have to. We've had a competitive partisan landscape for over 150 years and that isn't likely to change, due to a political phenomenon similar to evolution: Candidates who are ideologically acceptable to the electorate tend to get elected more often than those who are ideologically unacceptable, and replicate their beliefs within their party over time. So I find it hard to believe that the GOP is going to go extinct just because the demographics are shifting against them; our nation's demographics have ALWAYS been shifting.


Sigh.

The GOP is not inherently racist. GOP policies are not inherently racist. Conservatism is not inherently racist.

The reason it may LOOK that way to some, is that support for social welfare policy is often seen as more of a minority issue than a white issue.


Now, in the longer term, it is very hard to project what will happen. The GOP is currently struggling to redefine itself as a more moderate party than in times past (and it is, despite nonsense about Dubya being "Right wing"...ha!) but as minorities (especially Latinos) become more established and more often achieve prosperity, it is probable that they will trend more conservative.

In brief, I think an upswing in minority population is not necessarily an automatic Democrat party win, long term.
 
Of course the GOP and the Democrats are going to change. You don't see too many segregationist Democrats or Stalwarts Republicans anymore. As the old guard in a party is voted out, dies, or retires, a new set of politicians come in with a new platform. On social issues we going to go left. I would be shocked if in 20 years we didn't have legal weed, gay marriage and some form of amnesty for illegals in all 50 states. As for foreign policy, I think that America will take a step back from its role as global hegemon as other countries grow wealthier and more capable of defending themselves. Economically, I have no idea. Depending on how we deal with our growing debt, we could either see the true end of "era of big government" or we could become more like Western Europe.
Except as pointed out many times before. It is not the old people who voted for people like Rick Santorum. It was the middle age group who voted for him, and they are not going to die anytime soon.

Take a look at what Democrats are criticizing Republicans for in public. It is mostly women issues, and being too close to rich people. I think it is likely that Republicans will move left on both economics and social values, but they are going to remain socially conservative. In fact they are likely to go more left economically than socially.
 
Last edited:
If that is the electoral map, then republicans are ****ed.

You said they will take the "rich" northeast, but even taking Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, New Jersey, Massachutes Deleware, Pensylvania, Maryland, and Virginia Republicans would still not win.

I imagine Republicans will lose a lot of elections in the future like Democrats did after the Andrew Johnson before they find a way to appeal to voters again. You said they will to become less social conservative, but people like Rick Santorum were supported by the middle age groups, and not the old. I do not think they will become libertarian, that is a white liberal pipe dream. Minorities tend to be more socially conservative than they are fiscally conservative.

I think it much more likely that Republicans start appealing to Hispanics. They will do that by toning down the their libertarian roots. While liberterianism is popular among some youth, it is not popular with the majority.

I think there's more room to grow appealing to fiscal conservatism and toning down social conservativism. Most minorities are socially conservative, but as we see, they vote heavily democratic anyway. Ramping up social conservative values to try and appeal to them will likely not be able to peel off enough of them to offset the fiscally conservative, socially moderate voters they'll lose.
 
Sigh.

The GOP is not inherently racist. GOP policies are not inherently racist. Conservatism is not inherently racist.

I agree with all of the above.

The reason it may LOOK that way to some, is that support for social welfare policy is often seen as more of a minority issue than a white issue.

Now this is what I disagree with. The social welfare policies of the GOP may contribute to this perception, but they are not the main driver. The main driver of the perception of the GOP as racist is the racially-tinged rhetoric that frequently emanates from the Republican Party. Newt Gingrich calling Obama the "food stamp president." Rick Santorum saying he doesn't want to give black people handouts. Mitt Romney choosing welfare of all dormant issues to launch a random attack on Obama. Republican politicians casually referring to human beings as "illegals." The Republican commentators and rank-and-file members who have popularized a video of an uneducated, rowdy black woman talking about her "Obama phone." Etc, etc.

Now that's not to say that every Republican is racist. But it's the rhetoric, far more than the policies, that are hurting the Republicans among minority voters. Granted, the policies certainly don't help...but even here I think it has less to do with social welfare policies and more to do with things like immigration and criminal justice.

Now, in the longer term, it is very hard to project what will happen. The GOP is currently struggling to redefine itself as a more moderate party than in times past (and it is, despite nonsense about Dubya being "Right wing"...ha!) but as minorities (especially Latinos) become more established and more often achieve prosperity, it is probable that they will trend more conservative.

On some issues, you might be quite right that Latinos will become more conservative as they grow richer. But the problem for Republicans is that they are currently losing minority voters (both blacks and Latinos) at every rung of the economic ladder, vis a vis their position with white voters. At the very least, they're going to need to tone down the nasty anti-immigrant rhetoric, as Bush did.

In brief, I think an upswing in minority population is not necessarily an automatic Democrat party win, long term.

Agreed. I suspect things will continue essentially as they always have, in the face of changing demographics: The two parties will modify their ideas and essentially remain competitive with one another.
 
Why would the Republican party have to change? The party that opposes most racial equality measures is the big D. Most minorities agree with the socially conservative politicians. All the Republicans have to do is overcome the lies put out by the D's and it is all over.
 
Except as pointed out many times before. It is not the old people who voted for people like Rick Santorum. It was the middle age group who voted for him, and they are not going to die anytime soon.

In fact take a look at what Democrats are criticizing Republicans for in public. It is mostly women issues, and being too close to rich people. The GOP is not going to become libertarian as most Americans are not libertarian.

I never said that this was a matter of old people dying or people becoming libertarian. That's just the way these particular issues have been trending in the last couple of years. Just 15 years ago only a quarter of Americans supported gay marriage and weed legalization. Today over half of Americans support both. While support could ebb in the future, there is nothing indicating that they will as their political support means that they will be more present in Americans' lives. Greater familiarity creates greater acceptance. While, I have no idea how things like an Equal Rights Amendment, abortion, or gun control will go in the future, the aforementioned issues have a lot of momentum behind them.
 
Both parties continue to drift to the Left until the new (D) is really Communist, and the new (R) is Socialist.

Socialism is a left wing ideology not right. I would think it would be reversed. The right heads for the Lenninist view of Communism and the left goes for Democratic Socialism.
 
Most people have short memory and forget that it was conservatives in the USA who gave equal rights to blacks and gave women the right to vote.
 
Democrats will eventually have to figure out a way to pay for their welfare mess and they will fall apart.
 
Remember that during the Civil War the Repbulicans were the party of change and of social justice. They were the enviromental party and stood for equality.
The Democratic Party was Pro Slavery and for big business.

This stayed that way until the Grant administration when the Republicans abandoned the negro vote and went to bed with big business. The dems filled the void and it has not changed much since.

Politics change, just alot slower than other things seem to.
 
I think there's more room to grow appealing to fiscal conservatism and toning down social conservativism. Most minorities are socially conservative, but as we see, they vote heavily democratic anyway. Ramping up social conservative values to try and appeal to them will likely not be able to peel off enough of them to offset the fiscally conservative, socially moderate voters they'll lose.
The point is, the fiscal conservative socially liberal group is quite small. The largest conservative group is the social conservative and fiscally conservative group. While gay marriage may not be an issue in the future, gun rights, climate change, abortion, death penalty will.

Dropping social conservative issues means dropping a huge bunch of economically left wing, socially conservative voters. The GOP can't do that.

Also, I never talked about ramping up social conservatism. I am not talking about not going socially liberal. I believe the GOP will remain socially conservative, but move very close to Democrats economically. Republicans who care about fiscal issues, and also are somewhat socially conservative do not have much choice.
 
Last edited:
Remember that during the Civil War the Repbulicans were the party of change and of social justice. They were the enviromental party and stood for equality.
The Democratic Party was Pro Slavery and for big business.
Actually, you got it wrong. Republicans were for big business after the civil war. big business were in the north, not in the south.

This stayed that way until the Grant administration when the Republicans abandoned the negro vote and went to bed with big business. The dems filled the void and it has not changed much since.
Haha, no!

What really happened was that Republicans was always in bed with big business. Democrats remained racists, but turned further left economically. For instance in 1924 with FDR as a vice president of the Democrat ticket, Democrats debated if they were going to distance themselves from KKK.

Then in 1933 they got the power because people were angry at big business, but Republicans did not take Democrats place just yet. That only happened in 1960. Before that Democrats were racist and left wing economically and the majority of blacks voted Republican.
 
Last edited:
Actually, you got it wrong. Republicans were for big business after the civil war. big business were in the north, not in the south.


Haha, no!

What really happened was that Republicans was always in bed with big business. Democrats remained racists, but turned further left economically. For instance in 1924 with FDR as a vice president of the Democrat ticket, Democrats debated if they were going to distance themselves from KKK.

Then in 1933 they got the power because people were angry at big business, but Republicans did not take Democrats place just yet. That only happened in 1960. Before that Democrats were racist and left wing economically and the majority of blacks voted Republican.

Lincoln was a Republican. He was in bed with big business. Right

If you actually read what I said I said that Reps when to big business during the Grant Admin. I did not mention N or S.
 
I would think it would be reversed.
I wouldn't. Communism represents a stronger form of government control, and Democrats are clearly the front runner in that respect. Both sides are headed toward Communism, it's just that the Left is going to get there first.
 
Boomers, positively and negatively, have affected every stage and facet of society they have traveled through. They are huge and their number represent many things from many perspectives. Generally they are not going to be like their parents or your grandparents are/were in their Third Age.

The country is becoming more brown or less white. That doesn't mean that America will become more liberal as a result. Surprising to some, perhaps, Latinos are often conservatives.

Women, depending on the length and severity of the current wave of oppression, may begin to find a less radical but more unified voice.

As I see it those are the three major demographic groups to consider in regards to the future. If there are no major socio-economic changes and things remain pretty much as they are I think we will see a significant drop in GOP membership in the future. Gays and Lesbians will also play a role in reducing the strength of the GOP.

Americans are dropping out of organized religions in increasing numbers while at the same time the religious right has a stranglehold on the GOP and the RR will not let go. Americans want their religion and government separated. The efforts of the RR to infiltrate and change government is backfiring on them. It has hurt the GOP and will contribute to the crippling of the GOP.

The GOP will lose strength and may even splinter, but their influence will diminish.

So where does everyone go? Beats the hell out of me. Some will not doubt go to the Democratic Party. At that might last for a while but the Democratic Party cannot unify and deliver. Many Americans, brainwashed at an early age, become partisans because "that's what you are supposed to do." Yes, it happened to me too for a while. Just as surely as many Republicans vote against Democrats just because Democrats are the opposing party, Democrats do the same in reverse. What it means in real terms is that fewer people are truly committed to either party than party numbers indicate.

More American are figuring out that both ruling parties are bad, not good for America and only interested in their own preservation. More and more Americans are becoming independents or third party members. That is the current trend. Where will it lead? Who knows?

None of the above will be valid if/when the citizens of the Untied States experience another national or international event.

Nothing is certain but change. In so many ways, regarding so many issues, the People of America, had the opportunity to be the agents of change. We took the easy way out and said, "Naaa, **** it" as we are still doing today. What that means is that changes will still come, but we've done nothing the avert or lessen the impact, to mitigate the inevitable. We will not be the agents of change and change will be painful whatever it might be. Hopefully we will get lucky a time or two. I think we already have. But, luck is a lady and she does what she pleases, when she pleases.
 
Last edited:
Why would the Republican party have to change?


Exactly. We just need to do a better job of convincing minorities that Republican politicians will do a better job of representing them.
 
I wouldn't. Communism represents a stronger form of government control, and Democrats are clearly the front runner in that respect. Both sides are headed toward Communism, it's just that the Left is going to get there first.

You do know that you can have a strong central government without communism right?
 
You do know that you can have a strong central government without communism right?
It doesn't matter. I'm not interested in any kind of government that doesn't cultivate Capitalism within a free society.
 
Lincoln was a Republican. He was in bed with big business. Right

If you actually read what I said I said that Reps when to big business during the Grant Admin. I did not mention N or S.

We are not just talking about Lincoln. The industrial revolution didn't really get in high gear before the late 1800s. And by that time Republicans had become the big business party.

Republicans represented the big cities and its business. To give an example on who republican represented, we can take a look at the wikipedia article from the election in 1896. "McKinley forged a coalition in which businessmen, professionals, skilled factory workers, and prosperous farmers were heavily represented." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1896

Democrats however represented farmers, especially in the south and the midwest
 
Last edited:
Remember that during the Civil War the Repbulicans were the party of change and of social justice. They were the enviromental party and stood for equality.
The Democratic Party was Pro Slavery and for big business.


That is one way to look at it. Others saw the War of Northern Aggression as an effort to deprive the South of its political power by going after the source of their wealth. I dare say the party of social justice didn't find that a priority to help blacks for the 100 years after the South was defeated.

We are, however, running out of social change by my measure which is why the dems are going to have an increasingly more difficult problem going forward if they cannot find a way to pay for their new great social programs without gutting their old great programs.
 
wolfman24: I think this linked explained it better how republicans have always supported big business.

From a business perspective, Rauchway pointed out, the loyalties of the parties did not really switch. "Although the rhetoric and to a degree the policies of the parties do switch places," he wrote, "their core supporters don't — which is to say, the Republicans remain, throughout, the party of bigger businesses; it's just that in the earlier era bigger businesses want bigger government and in the later era they don't."

In other words, earlier on, businesses needed things that only a bigger government could provide, such as infrastructure development, a currency and tariffs. Once these things were in place, a small, hands-off government became better for business.

Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms? | Democrats & Republicans | LifesLittleMysteries.com
 
Back
Top Bottom