Slashdot Mirror
The Demographic Future of America's Political Parties
HughPickens.com writes: Daniel McGraw writes that based on their demographic characteristics the Democratic and Republican parties face two very different futures. There's been much written about how millennials are becoming a reliable voting bloc for Democrats, but there's been much less attention paid to one of the biggest get-out-the-vote challenges for the Republican Party heading into the next presidential election: The Republican Party voter is old—and getting older and far more Republicans than Democrats have died since the 2012 elections. By combining presidential election exit polls with mortality rates per age group from the U.S. Census Bureau, McGraw calculated that, of the 61 million who voted for Mitt Romney in 2012, about 2.75 million will be dead by the 2016 election. About 2.3 million of President Barack Obama's voters have died too but that leaves a big gap in between, a difference of roughly 453,000 in favor of the Democrats. "I've never seen anyone doing any studies on how many dead people can't vote," laughs William Frey, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who specializes in demographic studies. "I've seen studies on how many dead people do vote. The old Daley Administration in Chicago was very good at that."
Frey points out that, since Republicans are getting whiter and older, replacing the voters that leave this earth with young ones is essential for them to be competitive in presidential elections. "Millennials (born 1981 to 1997) now are larger in numbers than baby boomers ([born] 1946 to 1964), and how they vote will make the big difference. And the data says that if Republicans focus on economic issues and stay away from social ones like gay marriage, they can make serious inroads with millennials." Exit polling indicates that millennials have split about 65-35 in favor of the Dems in the past two elections. If that split holds true in 2016, Democrats will have picked up a two million vote advantage among first-time voters. These numbers combined with the voter death data puts Republicans at an almost 2.5 million voter disadvantage going into 2016.
Frey points out that, since Republicans are getting whiter and older, replacing the voters that leave this earth with young ones is essential for them to be competitive in presidential elections. "Millennials (born 1981 to 1997) now are larger in numbers than baby boomers ([born] 1946 to 1964), and how they vote will make the big difference. And the data says that if Republicans focus on economic issues and stay away from social ones like gay marriage, they can make serious inroads with millennials." Exit polling indicates that millennials have split about 65-35 in favor of the Dems in the past two elections. If that split holds true in 2016, Democrats will have picked up a two million vote advantage among first-time voters. These numbers combined with the voter death data puts Republicans at an almost 2.5 million voter disadvantage going into 2016.
Interesting. My parents never talked politics. They never mentioned who they were voting for. Or even IF they were voting.
Come to that, I have no idea at all who my siblings vote for now, or even if they vote.
And I'm none too sure who my wife and child vote for, or if they vote....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I'd be curious to see if the population of disillusioned independents is growing faster as well. I'd speculate most of them would be categorized as "moderates" which is a species rapidly disappearing, sadly from both political factions. I for one count myself among them, both parties have developed fundamental show stoppers that make it impossible for me to vote for either candidate in presidential elections. I don't at all consider my vote "thrown away". A vote for a 3rd party is a vote against both, it still counts and enough of them should garner attention for more moderates eventually.
It's been pretty much normal since FDR's day for young people to (tend to) vote Democrat and older people to (tend to) vote Republican.
And yet the Republican Party hasn't disappeared. Probably because some of those young D's eventually grow up to be old R's.
Note that the reasons for that transition are manifold, but I suspect largely a matter of the definition of "conservative" and "liberal" (which definitions have been shifting as time passes - what is "liberal" today will be "normal" tomorrow and "conservative" the day after).
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Fox News, perhaps the greatest grassroots triumph of the Republican Party since Reagan left office, is starting to become a liability for the party. Sure, it's evening newscasts still trounce CNN and the others in the ratings, but everyone (including Republicans themselves) views Fox News as the voice of the GOP. And it's a dogmatic, right wing voice down the line on economic and domestic issues, the voice the helped destroy the Republican Party in the northeast (practically all of the party's leading politicians there have been derided as RINOs by the rest of the party). It appeals most directly to older white voters, as TFS points out; these are the people who tune in night after night to watch Bill O'Reilly.
Personally, as a former independent who now votes consistently Democratic, I'd love to see the revival of the northeast Republican wing of the party. It was the POV of pragmatic businessmen, not conservative ideologues who wanted to enforce the teachings of the Bible while ensuring that America "stood tall" militarily in the Middle East, and against Russia.
Nonsense. Maybe Republicans have been more successful in gerrymandering, but both parties have engaged in this practice. That's why there are so many "reliable" Republican and Democrat seats.
In certain places, you know for certain that the 'R' or 'D' candidate is going to win. Incumbents from both parties typically have a 90+% re-election rate.
If Democrats are so much more popular, why aren't they able to maintain majorities and governorships in state governments and re-district to their own advantage? Are they too principled to use this tactic?
That's why the TEA Party was such an excellent movement. They managed to oust incumbents who had little chance of losing a general election. Impressive achievement for a bunch of old white people. How many incumbent Democrats have progressives and socialists managed to defeat in the last 10 years? And it's not like there aren't plenty of 'D's whose only appeal to the left is that they are marginally better than Republicans.
Note that with a few rare exception, I hate both of these scumbag parties and have rarely voted for either.
Yes - the problem with ubiquitous media and the ability for parties and pundits to use social networking is that they concentrate on dividing us when, in fact, the parties are more alike than not. They pick their single issues they can use to "motivate their bases," things that really have had no consequence in the last forty years (like the abortion "debate").
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Wealth? Wealth? What in the living hell are you talking about? I work at a tier-1 state university and most of our kids are happy to land any job upon graduation. Most of that generation will not know the wealth of the baby boomers, and not even of my generation (X). One Zuckerberg (yes, I acknowledge there will be more like him) doesn't make up for 100,000 disenfranchised voters.
The generation that came of age during the Great Depression skewed left for their lifetime as they knew poverty, and awhile back an article (I believe posted here; I'll dig for it) indicated that a generation that came of age in a very bad economic climate skewed left over their lifetimes more so than say the Boomers.
Most people I know (I'm in my early 30's) have grown utterly disgusted with both Republicans and Democrats and are now more-or-less libertarians. I think it's a trend that will grow as more and more people realize that both Republicans and Democrats have utter contempt for civil rights and personal choice.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Exactly. The Tea Party and similar ultra conservative factions
This is the problem today: you actually believe what the mainstream media tells you about republicans, when those very reporters vote nearly 100% Democrat, and the leading figures donate to (and some work for) the Clinton foundation, and are basically the propaganda arm of the Democratic party (and who knows what Fox News is smoking).
People believe the Tea Party was all white, because the media edited out the black people from the pictures, and people just swallowed that whole. People believe the elderly fools in the GOP represent the mainstream (every party has its embarrassments), because that's the only view the media will give.
Did you know that the average GOP congresscritter is actually a few years younger than the average Democrat? That the Citizens United ruling did not say that corporations are people (but instead that tightly-held corporations are effectively partnerships)? That Indiana's recent Religious Freedom Restoration Act was effectively the same as the one Clinton signed into law in the 90s amid no controversy? That the frequency of rape on college campus is actually lower than in America as a whole? That polls of right-wings voters show the leading issues right now are economic, foreign policy, and immigration, and that social issues like gay marriage and abortion aren't important enough to make the short-list?
This is the reason the GOP will flounder: what the party cares about, what the voters care about, and what the mainstream press goes on about are 3 nearly unrelated sets of issues.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
TFS is about right; if the Republicans focus solely on economic issues in an honest rather than ideological manner then they will shine with GenX as well as Millenials.
I have no idea what MightyMartian thinks the Tea Party is all about, but TEA means "Taxed Enough Already". It's about focusing on the economic issues over the social/cultural issues. IMHO, the "core conservative base" isn't as hung on cultural crap as the Republican party tries to be. And too many Republicans, once elected, start wavering from the conservative line, apparently due to feelings of inadequacy or wanting to be loved. "Yes, we have to make illegal immigrants be citizens so that people won't say we're big meanies! Never mind that they'll just vote Democrat! Just stop picking on us!"
Whenever I get the usual campaign snail mail spam for local and state races, I sometimes see Republican candidates whose list of platform points starts with an anti-abortion or anti-other social ills statement. WTF, we're not electing you for a freaking church leadership position, no matter what your personal echo chamber of born-agains may be telling you.
That's only your myopia. Unlike European multi-party systems, where each party represents a political group, in the US, the two parties each represent a dynamic coalition of a wide variety of political groups. The equivalent of a "US party" is a European coalition government, not a European party. And Europe is just as binary that way: there is the coalition that's in power, and there is its opposition.
I think the US system is a lot more flexible than the European system, since it's a lot harder to create and organize a new party in Europe than to shift the direction of one of the US parties. The latter can be done one politician at a time.
As a small-government fiscal conservative who doesn't give a rat's ass about social conservative issues (e.g. a libertarian), I know I, and many like me, are waiting for the old/religious right/social conservatives to die off. I think that when that happens, there will be a big influx of non-socialist Democrat voters to our side.
Quote: "The Tea Party and similar ultra conservative factions are forcing Republicans to keep fighting culture wars. . ."
The Tea Party has no position on cultural issues. The Tea Party has no position on gay marriage, or abortion, or immigration, or drug legalization. It's a one-issue group, just like the NRA is a one-issue group. The NRA's issue is guns. The Tea Party's issue is the national debt.
I know, there are many in this world who will try to tell you different. Most of those are either liberals trying to tar the Tea Party, or social conservatives trying to hijack it. Neither group are tea partiers. (And IMHO, Ted Cruz is no Tea Partier either. He walked away from us to do his own thing shortly after getting elected.)
My parents never talked politics. They never mentioned who they were voting for. Or even IF they were voting.
That pretty much amounts to child neglect in my eyes.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
“It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
You've made a basic error in your argument. Your are confusing social liberals with social progressives. Specifically right leaning social progressives. One can be fiscally conservative (believing that we should limit and control increases in spending) but socially liberal (believing that we should not limit individual liberty beyond the limits of absolute necessity). As one example moderate libertarians who don't go in for some of the more inane free market worship fit this bill. Remember left leaning indicates a dislike of governmental structure with the ultimate extreme being Anarchy while Right leaning indicates a desire for more, stronger government with the ultimate extreme being authoritarianism. Traditionally the term conservative only implies that one is opposed to change, or more often sudden and untested change while the term progressive indicates one wishes to encourage change in the pursuit of what they deem progress. In this day and age Republicans are in fact just as progressive as Democrats they simply have different ideas of what progress is. Dems are right wing social and moral progressives while Repubs are right wing religious and corporatist progressives. There are very few true conservatives in our government these days and perhaps fewer true liberals. Redefining these terms is one of the ways the two parties maintain control of there base. It allows them control the narrative with artificial divisions intended to alienate voters who may be allied on many other issues from each other. I suppose if any two ideologies are opposed to each other it's social liberalism and right wing social progressiveness. After all how can you believe in limited government interference in private affairs but also believe you have the right to force others to behave in a fashion consistent with your own moral beliefs. Let each live in accordance with there own conscience in so far as their actions do not unfairly infringe on the basic rights of others.
The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary
Have you seen the small parties in Europe that become king makers in coalitions? Have you seen the bullshit the greens push through when they become the swing block? How about the commies? How about the crazy nationalists?
The USA's politics are fucked, but not as fucked as Italy's (picking just one particularly egregious example).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Not surprised. I've met other former Republicans who say the GOP has moved so far to the right it's left them behind.* Meanwhile, I'm *really* tired that the last two Dems I voted for President who won are both Eisenhower Republicans.
At least for now, I have someone to vote for who's not "the least worst".
mark
---
Bernie Sanders for President!