Demographic Trends Not Looking Good For Republicans
Republicans are fighting over how best to deal with their demographic problems, but they seem to be fighting the wrong battle.
Pew Research takes a look at the Census Bureau’s report on the demographics of the 2012 electorate and finds some troubling signs for Republicans:
First, whites were 74% of voters last year at a time when they were just 63% of the population. This racial turnout gap is driven by the fact that a disproportionate share of non-whites are either too young to vote, not eligible to vote (because they’re not citizens), or just don’t vote. All of these factors could change over time.
Second, if we look at the 2060 projections, we can see that there’s a lot more diversity yet to come. The Census Bureau makes its projections based on an analysis of fertility rates, mortality rates and immigration trends. They’re not set in stone. Things change. But they give a sense of the general direction of things. And many of these future demographics are already a reality—for example, about half of newborns in 2010 were non-white.
In 2012, Mitt Romney captured just 17% of the non-white vote overall, according to the national exit poll, including 6% of the black vote, 27% of the Hispanic vote and 26% of the Asian-American vote. Unless future Republican presidential candidates do better with these groups, the electoral math will keep getting more difficult for the GOP.
In another post, Pew points out that the youth vote, which the GOP continues to lose, is going to become a more important factor in elections as time goes on:
Likewise, the so-called Millennial generation (adults, born after 1980, who are now ages 18 to 33) is certain to become a growing share of the electorate. Today they are 25.5% of the age-eligible electorate. By 2020, they will be 36.5%. If history is a guide, this cohort of voters will increase its voter participation levels as it grows older.
None of this is new, of course. People have been noticing these trends for years now and, in the immediate aftermath of the 2012 elections you saw a lot of Republicans calling for their party to find ways to become more open to minority groups and younger voters. We see some evidence of that in the push that Marco Rubio and other Republicans are leading for immigration reform. In that effort, though, you can also see why it’s going to be very difficult for the GOP to take the steps necessary to address its demographic problems. For the most part, the conservative base of the party is reacting incredibly negatively to the proposal the Rubio is advocating, and many are rejecting even the very idea of comprehensive immigration reform. The immediate danger for the GOP, of course, is that these people once again end up blocking immigration reform as they did in 2007, thus further damaging the Republican “brand” among Hispanic voters. Longer term, the danger is that the party ends up becoming more and more insular rather than being open to new voters. That virtually guarantees that the party will shrink, not grow.
Right now, Republicans seem to think that improving the party’s electoral chances is simply a matter of changing tactics rather than reexamining policy. For example, there’s been a lot of talk over the six months since the election about improving the party’s use of technology, with people pointing to the Obama campaign’s mastery of that medium as an example. It’s certainly true that the GOP would benefit from becoming more technologically adept, and when you’re running a campaign its always best to be aware of all of the tools that are available to reach out to voters rather than merely relying on the way things were always done. However, being adept at Twitter and Facebook isn’t going to be enough for the GOP to improve its position among those parts of the electorate that have turned away from it, Republicans are also going to have to look at the reasons why young and minority voters are rejecting the GOP. When you do that, you find that it is indeed policy rather than style that is motivating these voters. So, if the GOP is going to deal with its demographic problems it’s going to have to take a look at its policy positions or, it’s going to have to find a way to make persuasive arguments to these groups that the Republican positions on particular issues is the right one.
I believe that there are many Republican consultants and politicians who recognize this fact, even if they don’t state it openly. The base of the party, though, is clearly completely resistant to any suggestion that the party’s policy positions are to blame for their current predicament. That’s why you’re unlikely to see the GOP change its position on same-sex marriage any time soon, and why immigration reform is arguably in so much trouble right now. As long as that continues, Republicans are going to find that younger and minority voters are going be more alienated from their party, not less, and they will see the electoral consequences of that. Maybe then they’ll finally realize where their problems really lie.
The GOP is stuck in a classic Catch 22 situation. Sure they could move into the 20th century policy wise and possibly drive some of the youth/minority vote their way but doing so would seriously undermine turnout among their core constituency. Moving into the 21st century is a bridge too far for them.
But this situation is one they entirely foisted on themselves. And for a while it actually worked to some degree.
Basically the GOP’s biggest problem is that their major constituency just isn’t dying off fast enough despite the parties best efforts.
The millennials should be a fertile ground for the GOP. They’re out of work, hobbled by debt, and if they come out of 8 years of Obama feeling deprived they should be ready to vote for Republicans.
So naturally the GOP erects a wall of intolerance to make it impossible for millennials to vote GOP.
Kind of wonderful, really.
They are toast…..we have know this since the 2008 election.
This is the biggest reason why they are going through with this Benghazi crap, it is a last desperate attempt to damage Hillary before she curb stomps them in 2016.
I think their current policy can last them about another 10 years, just because it’s cyclical – some swing seats will go back and forth based on the whims of fickle voters – and because they own the house for the forseeable future thanks to Gerrymandering. However, beyond that point, they really will have to bring their policies to the modern era, where humans who aren’t white and rich are treated with a modicum of respect – and will finally be able to get away with it because a lot of their core constituency will have died.
Believe it or not, Rand Paul is actually campaigning in Iowa this weekend. And part of his shtick is to be rude about Hillary Clinton’s age.
Which of those two is more likely to appeal to younger voters?
Yes, that’s what I thought, too.
Which is what I wrote the day after the election.
@Davebo:
The GOP is wasting its national election losses. The only way it can win those elections is if Dems screw up. Consequently, it ought to sacrifice those voters who vote R based on an affinity for white, southern/conservative culture and start developing/contributing to policies that improve the lives of the masses.
Our state elected a Republican governor, legislature, and several other offices went Republican ending decades of Democrat domination. Numbers showed that young voters went Republican by a wide margin. Republican voter registration has been increasing for the last several years.
@Tyrell: @Tyrell: Doug is talking about the Presidency, the GOP will be fine on the state level thanks to redistricting. But they have major problems in terms of the White House, the white vote is declining and the non-white vote is rising and the only way that trend changes is when the GOP realizes they can’t push the same policies.
Can someone explain the white vote to me please? (redundant)
The problem these days seems to be, who can do it, and who cant. Obviously, the ‘R’s ‘ cant. (biggest obstructionist that exist)
Burning bridges behind you will always kick yer a$$.
G
Yes, if nothing else changed but demographics the GoP would be in real trouble. The real world doesn’t work that way, however.
Well, thank creation, minorities and the current young won’t change, react to the economy on continual “poised for progress”, or just find their interests are no longer aligned with the “elite” whites who run the Democrat party.
Where is that critical thinking that is suppose to be a by-product of a university leftist indoctrination?
@JKB: The problem is people normally vote one party for life, so banking on minorities and young people to change is wishfully thinking. 18 years old who voted for Obama this past election, will likely be voting for the Democrats when they are 60.
@Davebo:
Do you really think that becoming the Democratic-lite party will really attract any single women, blacks, or minorities.
Of course, no one ask the question of whether non-whites, single women, and student are very comfortable with the Democraic Party message of higher taxes on the rich, more entitlements, a bigger public sector, and a smaller private sector. Does anyone really believe that conservative can make enough change sto really attract non-whites or urban single whites?
@michael reynolds:
Do you really think 20 something are open to a message of smaller government and more personal responsbility or will be more open to a message for more entitlements, more government jobs, more spending, more student aid, and a bigger nanny state?
There is really no way for any conservative party to appeal to non-whites as long as ethnic/racial set asides exist. there is really no way for any conservative party to appeal to the poor and young as long as the Democrats appeal is to tax the rich and transfer the wealth to them.
@Jr:
Unless, of course, the Republican party becomes irrelevant, then there will be new “parties” arising to represent the issues of the many Dem sub-groups. So really if the desire is a dominant “Democrat” party, the Democrats need an almost effective Republican party, otherwise, there will be factions emerging.
In 2016, we’ll have a still flat job market, a very painful reality of Obamacare, the collapse of the Blue model in full swing, etc. Gay marriage will be a fait accompli. The gun control wounds will be fresh and motivating to those Americans desirous of keeping their Constitutional rights.
Oh, and fresh will be the final reality of abortion. Gosnell’s abortions will have been adjudicated murder. The guy in Ohio has been charged with murder for willfully causing the oldest woman to lose her baby. An odd situation since had the woman chose to kill here baby, there would be no murder.
And let’s not forget the real risk that Benghazi might be a real crisis and the IRS targeting of conservative groups is growing. On the IRS issue, Americans don’t like overt corruption, especially that geared to undermine the Constitution.
So Republicans might trend down, but then there will be “new” Republicans who will use the party to push back.
@Jr:
Oh and perhaps you should speak with Michael Reynolds and others here. Their entire hypothesis is that the controlling body of the Democratic party moved in mass to the Republican party after the Civil Rights bill in the 1960s. It is a fantasy but it hinges on voters changing party even after years of party loyalty back when party loyalty was a big thing.
Or perhaps you’d like to address the Reagan Democrats of the 1980s? And that was an actual measured voting shift, well documented.
@JKB:
“The gun control wounds will be fresh and motivating to those Americans desirous of keeping their Constitutional rights.”
What gun-control wounds?
“Oh, and fresh will be the final reality of abortion.”
A significant majority of Americans support keeping abortion legal. Younger Americans support keeping abortion legal by wider margins than older Americans. What do you think is going to suddenly change the minds of all these pro-choice Millennials? The answer isn’t “Gosnell.”
“And let’s not forget the real risk that Benghazi might be a real crisis and the IRS targeting of conservative groups is growing.”
Two hot steaming nothingburgers.
I noticed that nothing you discussed addresses job creation, student debt, ensuring access to affordable health care, drug laws, technology policy (particularly w/r/t SOPA and CFAA) or any other major issue of concern to the Millennial Generation.
Actually, as toxic as they are now, I hope that all of these trends continue, and that the GOP pretty much dies and a new “practical reality-based” Libertarian Party takes it’s place.
@al-Ameda:
The top end of libertarian support tops out of 10-15% of the voters. The libertarians cannot succeed because there are too many cities and states where they would be totally irrelevant.
A better model would be to look at Chicago or the District of Columbia where politics settles in to having one dominant party and the Democratic Primary is the real election. Everyone who is interested in politics will now how the game is play and will limit themselves when it comes to issues and positions. My guess is that the hypocrisy of politicians will become worst but that most voters will just not care as long as they get their government job, check,, or contract.
@superdestroyer:
What does the GOP have to do with smaller government? They’re interested in having just as big a government as the Democrats do, they just want it big in different areas – the military for instance, unless they’re talking of privatizing that (which I’ve yet to see them suggest). Until that happens, every soldier is a public servant, and the GOP is all for increasing their numbers.
And the GOP is against the nanny state? Since when? The War on Drugs, or the Patriot Act, or the attempts to keep gay marriage illegal are all prime examples of a nanny state.
I sometimes think the biggest problem the GOP has is that its basically dishonest about its goals. It’d probably be better off to admit it likes big government and a nanny state, but they prefer their own flavors to that of the Democratic party. How about pretending it doesn’t trust government, and then being for capital punishment, which is as intrusive an action a government can take into a person’s life as it gets. They don’t trust the government to regulate finance, but they trust them to run a system which can take a person’s life? Say what? Their older base is so used to those inconstancies that they don’t even think about them any more, but new voters see such contradictions and decide the GOP is just blowing smoke.
@JKB:
I just love the rich white Republicans denigrating the Democratic party as “elitists”. I love it even more when people without the capability for independent thought parrot the phrase.
I don’t know. You certainly didn’t learn any.
@superdestroyer:
What’s with your obsession over single women there Super D?
@JKB:
Well it is a fact. You can ignore it if you like but that doesn’t make it any less of a fact.
Ignoring facts is a big reason the GOP has become far less relevant than in the past and there’s no indication that will be changing in the near future.
The GOP’s stupidity on same-sex marriage is driving young people away. I see it in my daughter (age 26, pretty much textbook “millenial”) and her friends. Even those who are conservative in nearly every other position still support allowing same-sex marriage. And they extrapolate the GOP’s intransigence on “social issues” in a way that tars the party as a whole.
When 80% of the people who will make up 36.5% of the electorate in less than seven years support something, it doesn’t bode well for the party that opposes it.
@Andy:
2060 is 47 years away. That sounds like a long time, but the 50 year olds have already been born. Everyone who will be older than 47 has already been born. So if you are looking to change their prediction, you have to find a big change in less-than-47’s. I can’t see a sudden shift there.
@michael reynolds:
I think you answered your question. Those millenials are poor. That makes them takers to the current GOP.
@john personna:
“So if you are looking to change their prediction, you have to find a big change in less-than-47′s. I can’t see a sudden shift there.”
I am less certain about this. A new political generation, the Homelanders, will be starting to come to the voting booths in the next few years. These are the kids who have no memory of the wider world before September 11, and who absorbed a message from their childhood that it’s an unsafe world out there, and think of what is often called here “security theatre” as the way things are meant to be. They are kids who will view Katrina as every bit as remote and as much of unfortunate history which doesn’t affect who they vote for as stagflation of the 1970’s is for the Millienials.
While we cannot predict which way they will end up voting, it should not be taken as a given that they will be as liberal as the Millenials are shaping up as.
@george:
The Republicans, through GW Bush and Karl Rove, tried to be the second big government entitlement party. Bush left office with a 20% approval rating because of that and many Republicans in Congress were voted out of office. The voters want a high level of government spending with someone else paying for it (The David Axelrod strategy). There is not need for two political parties is policy and governance is about entitlements and how to pay for them. The Democratic Party already fills that role and the Republicans are not needed for that.
The Republican Party would probably be better off as the eat your vegetables party that says that high spending, high entitlement government always ends up in higher taxes for everyone. That a nanny state will always go something that a voter does not like. And that if people want a high entitlement state, they would have to pay the taxes to get it. Raising taxes to fund a high entitlement state is the way for a conservative party
@Moosebreath:
If demographically we have enough Homeschoolers to make up the Homelanders, I might worry.
@Mikey:
But the theory here is the GOP will be irrelevant. If that happens, then the opposition to same-gender marriage will be moot. Therefore, the conservative in all but… millennials will be free to vote their other beliefs. Or perhaps they decide that jobs and the economy are a more pressing factor and that even in office the social issues won’t be the driving factor.
In any case, the Democratic coalition will fracture as differing groups seek their own goals. And dare I mention, Tea Party Democrats will start wining primaries and then attracting independents but they won’t be good Leftists either.
@Moosebreath:
If you have no memory of September 11 then the message that “it’s an unsafe world out there” means nothing to you.
@JKB:
To reach the point there the Democrats splinter, they have to first get bored winning.
That will take a while.
@JKB:
I submit that this will happen to the GOP first.
The level of tension between the “social cons” and everyone else is growing rapidly. We’ve already seen what’s happened the last couple years at the ACU conference. There’s a split developing between those who agree with Rubio on immigration reform and the rest of the GOP.
The best thing the GOP could do right now is support same-sex marriage. It’s an inevitable thing, they might as well neutralize the issue now rather than allowing it to damage the party brand for another 10-15 years.
@john personna: Compare the two parties today with what they were like in early-mid 1960’s. Compare the demographics and values of Americans then and now. A lot can change and probably will in ways that we can’t predict now.
@Andy:
Oh right. I agree that the nature of the two parties could change greatly in 47 years.
But that would probably be in the context of the demographic changes which worry 2013 Republicans. In fact, I could see a 2060 GOP much like today’s moderate wing of the Democratic party, and some sort of “new socialists” as the Democrats.
By 2060 we might have AI and “robot-socialism” after all.
@JKB: “And let’s not forget the real risk that Benghazi might be …”
OMG, Henny Penny, what else terrible is going to happen so the GOP can get back into power absent governing policies which unite a majority of voters?
The GOP loses because it has abdicated governing, mainly by spewing your talking points to no effect whatsoever. This epic temper tantrum cannot last. A critical mass will soon keel over and that will be that.
Of course it doesn’t look good. The Republican Party with their big tent nonsense shows that. They don’t need a tent. With the amount of people they really want in their party a small sleeping bag is plenty big enough! Now they want to reach out to others! Oh please. How stupid do they think the voting public is? Rubio, Cruz & Paul are ‘new’ faces but all spouting the same old party line we’ve heard before. What part of ‘we didn’t like your policies’ don’t they still get??
You are tangling up your metaphors but no matter.
Well, when that happens, cue up growing internal rifts inside the Democratic party as the faction struggle for control in the absence of “The Other” to unite them.
@JKB:
Has the Democratic Party in Chicago, Baltimore, NYC, DC, or Boston fractured. No one interested in politics is going to willing to walk away from the $5 trillion plus that the government will have to spend. More than likely is that the big government, big spending Republicans will just move over and start participating in the Democratic Party primaries and issues will be settled there.
When politics is about entitlements and how to fund them, there is no reason for two political parties. And in the future, the issue about jobs will be about government jobs and who gets them. The millennials who are not Ivy Leaguers will all be fighting for the good government jobs and the losers will be the ones working in the service sector.
@Mikey:
You should hope not. A fracturing of the Republican party would create many opportunities for Democrats to also abandon the zealots and seek the middle way.
My point is, the Democratic party holds together only as long as Emmanuel Goldstein looms in the darkness. If Emmanuel Goldstein goes away, then “petty differences” come to the forefront. Remember what happened to Jones, Aaronson and Rutherford. What happened to Trotsky. When the enemy is defeated, the party turns upon the enemies within.
@Me Me Me:
“If you have no memory of September 11 then the message that “it’s an unsafe world out there” means nothing to you.”
No, if you have no memory of September 11, then the message that we don’t need to be afraid of everything will mean nothing to you, as they won’t remember a time that was not true. It makes them easier targets for the sorts of leaders who constantly tell you everyone different is scary.
@superdestroyer:
Possibly, but very few in the GOP are advocating that currently. Right now, most want large government (military), nanny state (war on drugs and Patriot Act, and the moral reasons most give for not wanting same sex marriage), and entitlements (Medicare). It would require a major shift in the party to give those up. The fact is, both Democrats and Republicans want a nanny state, the disagreement is solely on what they want the nanny to do. And that the Democrats are honest about it, while the Republicans pretend that they want small government while in fact asking for a large, intrusive government.
The exception in the GOP is the libertarians, and they are few, and often fairly unrealistic.
@JKB:
If there’s any party searching for an Emmanuel Goldstein, it’s the GOP. Here are some of the Goldsteins it has found so far:
LGBTs
Hispanics
Blacks
Women
Muslims
Atheists, Agnostics, Secularists
Etc.
By your logic, the GOP should be immortal. Congrats!
@JKB:
Unless I’m mis-reading you, I think that would not be a bad thing. I would like both parties to “abandon the zealots and seek the middle way.” Because what we’ve got right now is, as comedian Lewis Black so incisively puts it, “a bowl of shit looking at itself in the mirror.”
Something has to change, and it is going to change in a big way. The only question is what gives first, and I think the tectonic shift in social attitudes that’s currently occurring means the GOP will.
@george:
If politics is about entitlements and how to pay for them, one party is more than enough for the U.S. since there will be no need for most elections. The Atlantic has an article about how both parties are trying to recruit more women. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/a-womans-edge/309284/ What the author skipped is that it makes sense for more women politicians when the issues are the entitlements of health care, education, and pensions with the major decision being how to pay for them.
As a member of the demographic group is supposed to be courting, let me tell you a couple things, GOP.
There’s only one little thing that would get me to consider voting for you. (God knows the Democrats piss me off often, but as you are currently I would never vote for any member of the Republican party at the national level) The one little thing? Act like you’re interested in governing. That’s all. You don’t even have to pass my preferred policies. Just act like you actually care about policy. As it is, you just act like a 5 year old who has decided they will never eat vegetables again, because you happen to dislike broccoli.
You’re welcome.
@Jr: @Jr: I’ve changed my party affiliation. I was once a liberal democrat. Now, no. Disraeli once said something to the effect that “if you’re young and not a liberal, you don’t have a heart. If you’re old and not a conservative, you don’t have a brain.
Things change with time.
Maybe some of you can help me. I’m a multiracial man who’s been voting GOP since ’98. I’m also a recovering socialist and cultural Marxist all of whose liberal friends (especially those of color) have abandoned him. The Heritage Foundation/Jason Richwine study again recently raised the specter of the Bell Curve, IQ, and all of its racial implications. I had naively believed that as a nation we were, for the most part, over all this ‘people of color are inferior’ crap. Now I’m finding conservative pundits across the board are defending Richwine and excoriating the HF for firing him. Meanwhile, all of my liberal former friends are saying, “I told you so.” So I’m left fighting a battle on two fronts, one against socialism (which I know doesn’t work and I now find truly evil), and one against the pseudo-scientific Bell Curve racists who are buried deep in the bowels of the Republican Party. My question is twofold: what am I to think now when I meet white conservatives, do you all ascribe to this view of people of color? And, secondly, do you want me as an ally against the Obamanistas or not? RSVP th**********@li**.com https://twitter.com/TheJettDavis
@Jett Davis: Hey, that’s great that you are fighting a battle against socialism.
What country are you in?
@superdestroyer:
You know, that’s something I’ve heard from people of all political stripes – basically that we only need one party representing a political viewpoint. But isn’t that equivalent to saying we only need one company manufacturing cars? I suspect things might run better if parties had to compete with other parties of the same viewpoint, as well as those with other viewpoints.
The problem is of course practical, splitting the vote of the viewpoint in anything but strict proportional representation systems. But I find it enticing all the same – as it stands, every party of every viewpoint gets away with outrageous practices because people who support the viewpoint hold their noses and vote for the team. Having two or more options for each general viewpoint might help that.
@george:
I think the constant churn of governments in Italy or other countries demonstrates that multiple parties that are not rigidly separated does not help the issue. Once you have multiple parties, it seems that corruption gets worse.
However, as government becomes a delivery system for entitlements, it makes sense that the U.S. will become a one party state and that politics could soon be seen as women’s work. We no longer need politicians who win big wars, race to the moon, or change the country. we just want politicians who deliver a huge buffet of government goodies while sticking as few as people paying the bills. The mommy-in-tennis-shoe type politicians are perfect for doing that job.