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.
It boggles my mind, the extent to which U.S. culture only sees two different possibilities. It makes me want to take up smoking and jogging just to see if anyone's ears start bleeding.
One assumption that this summary makes is that people do not switch party affiliations throughout their life. I used to be Republican, but have wised up as I've gotten older. However, I understand that typically as folks get older they tend to do the opposite of what I did (though I have no source to cite for this). Nonetheless, if true, it would mean that Republicans have nothing to fear from the changing demographics. Unless the article addresses this, the information presented is meaningless.
These trends are not new. The sole reason there is a Republican majority in the House of Representatives is the massive gerrymandering that took place in the last decades. Democrats have consistently won the "popular" vote for the house, but districts are tactically set to favor Republicans almost across the board.
The districts are this way because while Millennials do indeed skew heavily liberal/Democrat/progressive, they tend to NOT get involved in state and local politics. Republican governors and state legislatures used the last gasps of the dying generation to secure powerful gerrymandered districts ensuring the GOP holds onto the house, at least until the next census.
An interesting side effect, however, is that these artificial superdistricts are such that the Republican is practically guaranteed to win it in the general election. Thus, far-right tea party nonsense candidates can appeal to their local base without much fear of throwing the actual election over to the Democrats. The safer these districts are for Republicans, the further right, racist, sexist, and old they'll skew for the foreseeable future.
Until young people get active in local and state politics, then it literally is a game of just waiting for the current old set in those places to die of old age.
GeekNights!
Late Night Radio for Geeks!
Just because dead people are registered to vote doesn't make it voter fraud (it makes it registration fraud, but that's completely different). Now, if you had dead people actually voting (setting IL aside), then you might have a problem. However, the linked article says:
There's little evidence that this has led to widespread voter fraud, but it has raised concerns that the system is vulnerable.
Using this as a basis for demanding IDs to vote is completely dishonest and disenfranchises far more people from voting than you'd catch or prevent at voter fraud. My town sends out a yearly census that you fill out and send back in. Verify your registration details, sign, and send back in (you can probably also deposit it by hand at town hall or fill out the forms there). Not filling it out implies they'll take you off the voter rolls, and seems to be a good compromise if there's no reply after a few years.
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.
...decide to back legalizing pot and abandon their sex war against abortion, contraception and gays and probably pick up a lot of voters who might otherwise go Democratic.
Backing pot legalization would probably be popular with white collar swing voters who probably like the Republicans on taxes and ultimately take a lot of the harassment heat off blacks by stripping the police of one of their major repression avenues. They might even temper it by announcing that they're going to repurpose those resources being even more law and order on other criminal justice issues to mollify the cops and the law-and-order segment of the electorate.
Ending the anti-sex campaign against women may be even more beneficial. I've read that a lot of middle class women tend towards a certain conservatism and if you stop acting completely anti-woman this could be a major source of support.
Both parties are so close for the most part that it seems like only semi-radical changes on a handful of small issues is necessary to move swing voters. And both of these issues are big from a publicity perspective but probably less meaningful to the corporate guys who fund them.
Republicans could still be the anti-tax/pro-corporate party, pro-military and keep most of their base intact. They may alienate born agains and some law and order cranks with those changes, but who are those people going to vote for anyway? They're not going to vote for tax-hiking, gun-grabbing, affirmative action Democrats (intentional facetious remarks) no matter what.
It's harder to see the issues on which Democrats could being "radical" on. About the only one I can think of is giving up on their general penchant for gun control. They might consider bring more pro-labor when it comes to issues of immigration/H1-Bs but this runs counter to their larger embrace of multiculturalism and also gets them in trouble with Silicon Valley money that wants more tech immigrants.
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.
Look no further than California, Maryland, and Illinois. The 3rd District of MD is an absolute abomination. Hell, the term "gerrymandering" itself is named after Governor Gerry of Massachusetts who was lampooned for signing odd-shaped state senate districts into law. But yeah, fuck all of the Republicans in those deep blue states -- as long as your team wins, right?
You're delusional (tainted by confirmation bias, no doubt) if you don't think democrats pull the same crap. I remember when voting for Bush would bring us back to the days of back-alley abortions. They both pick inconsequential things to motivate their bases - sometimes it works, sometimes not. Anyone that votes on a single issue should stay the %$R#@ at home.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Orrin G. Hatch, Utah-Jan. 4, 1977 Thad Cochran, Miss.-Dec. 27, 1978 Charles E. Grassley, Iowa-Jan. 5, 1981 Mitch McConnell, Ky.-Jan. 3, 1985 Richard C. Shelby, Ala.-Jan. 6, 1987 John McCain, Ariz.-Jan. 6, 1987 James M. Inhofe, Okla.-Nov. 30, 1994
The following is a list from rollcall.com of the Democrats in the U.S. Senate that have served for at least 20 years and the dates when they first took office ...
Patrick J. Leahy, Vt.-Jan. 14, 1975 Barbara A. Mikulski, Md.-Jan. 6, 1987 Harry Reid, Nev.-Jan. 6, 1987 Dianne Feinstein, Calif.-Nov. 4, 1992 Barbara Boxer, Calif.-Jan. 5, 1993 Patty Murray, Wash.-Jan. 5, 1993
The following is a list from rollcall.com of the Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives that have served for at least 20 years and the dates when they first took office ...
Don Young, Alaska-March 6, 1973 Jim Sensenbrenner, Wis.-Jan. 15, 1979 Harold Rogers, Ky.-Jan. 5, 1981 Christopher H. Smith, N.J.-Jan. 5, 1981 Joe L. Barton, Texas Jan. 3, 1985 Lamar Smith, Texas Jan. 6, 1987 Fred Upton, Mich.-Jan. 6, 1987 John J. Duncan Jr., Tenn.-Nov. 8, 1988 Dana Rohrabacher, Calif.-Jan. 3, 1989 Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Fla.-Aug. 29, 1989 John A. Boehner, Ohio-Jan. 3, 1991 Sam Johnson, Texas-May 18, 1991 Ken Calvert, Calif.-Jan. 5, 1993 Robert W. Goodlatte, Va.-Jan. 5, 1993 Peter T. King, N.Y.-Jan. 5, 1993 John L. Mica, Fla.-Jan. 5, 1993 Ed Royce, Calif.-Jan. 5, 1993 Frank D. Lucas, Okla.-May 10, 1994 Rodney Frelinghuysen, N.J.-Jan. 4, 1995 Walter B. Jones, N.C.-Jan. 4, 1995 Frank A. LoBiondo, N.J.-Jan. 4, 1995 Mac Thornberry, Texas-Jan. 4, 1995 Edward Whitfield, Ky.-Jan. 4, 1995
The following is a list from rollcall.com of the Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives that have served for at least 20 years and the dates when they first took office ...
John Conyers Jr., Mich.-Jan. 4, 1965 Charles B. Rangel, N.Y.-Jan. 21, 1971 Steny H. Hoyer, Md.-May 19, 1981 Marcy Kaptur, Ohio-Jan. 3, 1983 Sander M. Levin, Mich.-Jan. 3, 1983 Peter J. Visclosky, Ind.-Jan. 3, 1985 Peter A. DeFazio, Ore.-Jan. 6, 1987 John Lewis, Ga.-Jan. 6, 1987 Louise M. Slaughter, N.Y.-Jan. 6, 1987 Nancy Pelosi, Calif.-June 2, 1987 Frank Pallone Jr., N.J.-Nov. 8, 1988 Eliot L. Engel, N.Y.-Jan. 3, 1989 Nita M. Lowey, N.Y.-Jan. 3, 1989 Jim McDermott, Wash.-Jan. 3, 1989 Richard E. Neal, Mass.-Jan. 3, 1989 José E. Serrano, N.Y.-March 20, 1990 David E. Price, N.C.-Jan. 7, 1997 Also served 1987-95 Rosa DeLauro, Conn.-Jan. 3, 1991 Collin C. Peterson, Minn.-Jan. 3, 1991 Maxine Waters, Calif.-Jan. 3, 1991 Jerrold Nadler, N.Y.-Nov. 3, 1992 Jim Cooper, Tenn.-Jan. 7, 2003 Also served 1983-95 Xavier Becerra, Calif.-Jan. 5, 1993 Sanford D. Bishop Jr., Ga.-Jan. 5, 1993 Corrine Brown, Fla.-Jan. 5, 1993 James E. Clyburn, S.C.-Jan. 5, 1993 Anna G. Eshoo, Calif.-Jan. 5, 1993 Gene Green, Texas-Jan. 5, 1993 Luis V. Gutierrez, Ill.-Jan. 5, 1993 Alcee L. Hastings, Fla.-Jan. 5, 1993 Eddie Bernice Johnson, Texas-Jan. 5, 1993 Carolyn B. Maloney, N.Y.-Jan. 5, 1993 Lucille Roybal-Allard, Calif.-Jan. 5, 1993 Bobby L. Rush, Ill.-Jan. 5, 1993 Robert C. Scott, Va.-Jan. 5, 1993 Nydia M. Velázquez, N.Y.-Jan. 5, 1993 Bennie Thompson, Miss.-April 13, 1993 Sam Farr, Calif.-June 8, 1993 Lloyd Doggett, Texas-Jan. 4, 1995 Mike Doyle, Pa.-Jan. 4, 1995 Chaka Fattah, Pa.-Jan. 4, 1995 Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas-Jan. 4, 1995 Zoe Lofgren, Calif.-Jan. 4, 1995
Right.. and people become Democrats once there are no jobs (a BA is the new HS diploma, fetch my coffee senior barista), and they become Democrats once their kids can't afford education and healthcare in unattainable.
It's happening, and there's nothing you can do about it. I've got a net worth in seven digit territory, and even I vote Dem because even with a mill or two stashed away, these days you can still find yourself easily fucked and depending on social safety nets. In addition, you disenfranchise everybody else long enough, and they're going to look at what YOU have.
This guy gets it.
You got that quote backwards. "Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." - Georges Clemenceau
I really hope not. The millenials are the most closed minded and intolerant generation of Americans ever to walk the soil of this land. Having them in the party of Lincoln would just be wrong. Better the party die an honorable death than embrace their values.
... you buy a gun, and you become a republican. That's been the cycle for a long time. Yeah, lots of republicans have croaked lately but they're being replaced by democrats shifting over.
Besides, as we've seen the last 6 years there isn't much difference between the two. One party is right-wing, and the other is 1 order of magnitude further to the right. Either way the republicans and their supporters win.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
After the 2008 elections everyone realized the Democrats under Pelosi and Obama were too far left
Really? Obama has signed into law - including during the time when Pelosi was leading the house - bills that Reagan and both Presidents Bush could have only dreamed of. Under Obama - regardless of who controlled either chamber of congress - we saw huge tax cuts to the wealthy, and continued marginalization of the middle and lower classes.
Essentially, while the GOP was marching further to the right, the democrats decided it would be a good idea to follow.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
1) Hate-crazed science-denying racists and homophobes.
2) People who are willing to be associated with hate-crazed science-denying racists and homophobes.
"Skill shows through where genius wears thin." -Wittgenstein || Religion: uniting aviation and architecture.
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.
Came here to say this, and you said it quite well. Millennials will never have the money to make voting Republican look like anything approaching a decent idea, so most are going to be Leftists 4 Lyfe. There's a downside to impoverishing a whole generation that the conservatives didn't see coming.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Obama has signed into law - including during the time when Pelosi was leading the house - bills that Reagan and both Presidents Bush could have only dreamed of
I don't recall Pelosi or Obama advocating anything more than not raising taxes as much as some wanted. What laws are you referring to?
A two party system is bad enough. I would imagine what would effectively be a one party system would be even worse.
But people get older all the time.Years ago, you could remain Democrat until you died at 50-60 of a heart attack.
Now medicine has evolved and more and more people get to the age where you become Republican naturally.
US has only two political parties and using football (America's sport) there can only be two teams. And like football, there are only a few who make all the moves (NFL and spectators). Like the political parties, football teams huddle to discuss the next play. Spectators have no idea what they are talking about and they have very little influence on the outcome of the play, all they can do is cheer or boo. Concept of additional political parties whether they be the Libertarians or the Greens is too mysterious for this country to comprehend.
mfwright@batnet.com
Libertarian is just short hand for 'Bring on the post-apocalyptic waste-land. I'm tired of paying taxes and I have enough weaponry to impose my will on others.'
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'm guessing you don't know many people then. I think most of us know some people who have a libertarian philosophy (fair number here on slashdot) though frequently they seem to be republicans or tea party supporters. But they definitely are a minority. Usually I see them in the Ayn Rand worshiping or Tea Party strains though there are others. Most people regardless of age group think libertarianism is a bit of a fringe philosophy including most independents.
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.
Unlikely. There is no evidence I can see of a trend away from the current two parties. As long as we have first past the post voting and gerrymandering I don't really see that changing even though I think it should.
What's up with all the political articles? Starting flame wars? I come to /. for TECH discussions. I get my political news elsewhere.