Democrats May Be On The Verge Of Becoming A ‘Permanent Minority’ Party

[mystery-ak]

Democrats May Be On The Verge Of Becoming A ‘Permanent Minority’ Party

Posted By Stewart Lawrence On 2:20 PM 02/06/2017

Remember when Democrats predicted the imminent decline of the GOP?

The theory was that Republicans were so out of touch with women and ethnic minorities that they would soon be relegated to the status of a “permanent minority” — supported only by Southern white men and incapable of recapturing the White House.

Donald Trump’s victory has put an end to this fantasy. Now it’s the Democrats who are facing their own “doomsday” scenario.

A recent analysis conducted by Third Way — a self-described “centrist” think tank — argues that Democrats are evolving into a “coastal” party. They have strong bases in California, New York and Massachusetts but are slowly ceding the rest of the country to Republicans.

Third Way compared 2016 election results in the two areas and found an astounding asymmetry:

In California, New York and Massachusetts, home to roughly 24 million voters, voters chose Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump by a large margin, 65% to 35%.

more
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/06/democrats-may-be-on-the-verge-of-becoming-a-permanent-minority-party/

[Maj. Bill Martin]

It is pretty much an American tradition to worry about the losing party becoming a permanent minority party after an election.  Had Hillary won, they'd be saying the same thing about us right now.

The Dems have far too many dedicated voting blocks, and far too much influence in schools and universities, to ever be at risk of becoming a permanent minority party.

[Cripplecreek]

It is pretty much an American tradition to worry about the losing party becoming a permanent minority party after an election.  Had Hillary won, they'd be saying the same thing about us right now.

The Dems have far too many dedicated voting blocks, and far too much influence in schools and universities, to ever be at risk of becoming a permanent minority party.

Yup, declaring either party to be out of power for good is almost a guarantee they'll start winning in the near future.

[XenaLee]

It's a nice dream....  but no, the leftists will only double-down and endeavor to work even harder to get that power back.  And they will, eventually.  That's why we need to be careful about what laws we gleefully enact that they could use against us, later on.

[Cripplecreek]

It's a nice dream....  but no, the leftists will only double-down and endeavor to work even harder to get that power back.  And they will, eventually.  That's why we need to be careful about what laws we gleefully enact that they could use against us, later on.

Yup. Its also why I oppose Trump doing things by executive order. The next democrat president can sign another EO to erase those done today.

An EO can't erase existing legislated law.

[dfwgator]

It is pretty much an American tradition to worry about the losing party becoming a permanent minority party after an election.  Had Hillary won, they'd be saying the same thing about us right now.

The Dems have far too many dedicated voting blocks, and far too much influence in schools and universities, to ever be at risk of becoming a permanent minority party.

If Trump can permanently shift the rank-and-file Labor Vote to the GOP, the Democrats are finished as far as winning National elections,  just winning the coasts won't be enough.

[Frank Cannon]

The Dems have far too many dedicated voting blocks, and far too much influence in schools and universities, to ever be at risk of becoming a permanent minority party.

You'd think that, but there is no more DLC like Slick Willie had to steer the party back off it's radical Socialist cliff. If they stay on their current message they will remain to be the LA/Chicago/NYC party and nothing more. You also have to look at states and not just focus on the Presidency. The Rats are destroyed in states all over the country. It could be a generation until they make up those defeats.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Yup. Its also why I oppose Trump doing things by executive order. The next democrat president can sign another EO to erase those done today.

An EO can't erase existing legislated law.

Some of this stuff isn't really EO.  The immigration, for example, is being done pursuant to a very specific grant of authority by Congress that really can't be reduced to legislation.  And of course, Trump is doing these things very early in his term, sooner than Congress really even has the opportunity to address them.  Obama did them at the end of his because he never got around to getting the legislation at all.