Axios: ‘Not a Single’ Demographic Trend ‘Favors Republicans’ in Elections

[mystery-ak]

John Binder 21 Jul 2019

There are currently no nationwide demographic trends that “favor Republicans” in future elections, Axios reports.

The nation’s shifting demography — spurred primarily from mass legal immigration where more than 1.2 million foreign nationals are added to the U.S. population every year — is set to make it increasingly difficult for Republican candidates to win statewide and national elections, Axios’s Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen note:

    The single biggest threat to Republicans’ long-term viability is demographics.

    The numbers simply do not lie. America, as a whole, and swing states, in particular, are growing more diverse, more quickly. There is no way Republicans can change birth rates or curb this trend — and there’s not a single demographic megatrend that favors Republicans.

more
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/07/21/axios-not-single-demographic-trend-favors-republicans/

[PeteS in CA]

So ... ethnic groups vote monolithically? The Dems already got bit in 2016, making that assumption - Trump was the first R Presidential candidate in decades (IIRC) to get more than 10% of "the black vote". People are not , are not herd animals, are more complex.

[libertybele]

So ... ethnic groups vote monolithically? The Dems already got bit in 2016, making that assumption - Trump was the first R Presidential candidate in decades (IIRC) to get more than 10% of "the black vote". People are not , are not herd animals, are more complex.

The DEMS succeeded in 2018 and Cruz barely eeked out a win.  The demographics have changed in the past 3 years and are continuing to change for two reasons; illegal immigration/asylum and people moving out of higher taxes and cost of living blue states.

The black vote is one thing but the Hispanic vote is quite another.  They will decide the vote in the 2020 and future elections; perhaps that is why the reluctance to secure the border. They WILL eventually be the majority in the U.S.  Castro is the winning VP if selected.  I for one hope not.

[jmyrlefuller]

So ... ethnic groups vote monolithically? The Dems already got bit in 2016, making that assumption - Trump was the first R Presidential candidate in decades (IIRC) to get more than 10% of "the black vote". People are not , are not herd animals, are more complex.

98% of black women in Alabama, one of the most heavily Republican states in America, voted for the Democrat in the Senate race... so much so that the margin of error suggests an inability to find a single voter in that demographic who voted Republican. Obama won somewhere around 96% of the black vote. Candidates in majority-minority districts routinely win with over 90% of the vote, even if challenged.

There is a monolith, and it's a problem. It's not as big of an issue in Hispanic and Asian populations which, although they favor Democrats, have a sizable minority of different thinking. There is no monolith among whites, where what you vote for depends on whether you're single or married, male or female, urban or rural, work for private or government employment, whether you're young or old.

Victim mentality is rampant among those in influence in minority communities. The more a community sees itself as victims, the more they vote Democrat. That's why, I would suspect, there's sizable blocs of conservatism in the Hispanic and Asian communities (in the latter despite being heavily urban in concentration) but black communities and native reservations are such monolithic Democrats.

The key to breaking the monolith is to break the victim mentality.

[Cyber Liberty]

So ... ethnic groups vote monolithically? The Dems already got bit in 2016, making that assumption - Trump was the first R Presidential candidate in decades (IIRC) to get more than 10% of "the black vote". People are not , are not herd animals, are more complex.

Exactly so. 

[Formerly Once-Ler]

So ... ethnic groups vote monolithically? The Dems already got bit in 2016, making that assumption - Trump was the first R Presidential candidate in decades (IIRC) to get more than 10% of "the black vote". People are not , are not herd animals, are more complex.

That's because McCain and Romney were running against a black candidate, and your numbers are wrong.  https://time.com/5255909/donald-trump-black-voter-support/

According to data collected by the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research at Cornell, only 8% of African-American voters cast their ballots for Trump in the 2016 presidential election. On the flip side, 88% of black voters supported Hillary Clinton. In Trump’s defense, he took a greater share of the black vote than did Mitt Romney in the 2012 election — 6% to Barack Obama’s 93% — but whether less than one in ten voters constitutes “a lot” is debatable. President George W. Bush received 11% of the African-American vote in 2004.

[PeteS in CA]

The DEMS succeeded in 2018 and Cruz barely eeked out a win.  The demographics have changed in the past 3 years and are continuing to change for two reasons; illegal immigration/asylum and people moving out of higher taxes and cost of living blue states.

The black vote is one thing but the Hispanic vote is quite another.  They will decide the vote in the 2020 and future elections; perhaps that is why the reluctance to secure the border. They WILL eventually be the majority in the U.S.  Castro is the winning VP if selected.  I for one hope not.

The Dems' House gains were average or less for a midterm. And contrary to normal, the Rs gained seats in the Senate, something the MSM glossed over, for obvious reasons. Many Hispanics are Pro-Life Catholics, and the Dems are forcing Pro-Life people out. Many Hispanics (and blacks, BTW) are quite POed about illegal immigration, another factor that will alienate Hispanics and the Dem Party. I'm not believing the MSM's partisan-wishful-thinking Finis Republicanae narrative.

[Fishrrman]

j myrle observed (accurately):
"There is a monolith, and it's a problem. It's not as big of an issue in Hispanic and Asian populations which, although they favor Democrats, have a sizable minority of different thinking. There is no monolith among whites, where what you vote for depends on whether you're single or married, male or female, urban or rural, work for private or government employment, whether you're young or old."

And this is why whites (not only here in America but in the entire Western World) are destined for oblivion.

They won't band together to protect their cultural, ethnic, and national interests. Instead they nobly, but stupidly, claim that they are "above all that".

But other ethnicities inherently embrace the sensibility and practicality of doing so. They "know who they are". Call it... well... call it "identity", because that's what it is.

Take a good look at what happened in California, when the primary ethnic group behind the development of that state got pushed into a minority.

Then take a look at New Mexico, the second state in which whites are now "a minority". How are the politics goin' there?

Look at demographics in Texas. There are too many traditional-minded gringos who just won't open their eyes to see what's comin'.

Demography is destiny.

The Indians certainly sensed this, and at least a good number of them fought to try to protect what they had. They lost, nevertheless. But at least they tried.

But the Euro-whites of the world today?
They won't fight, and that's why their future... will ultimately be that of the Indians.
As in, "defeated".

[Absalom]

The GOP was ascendant from Lincoln to Hoover which gave
them control of Congress and the Courts for some 70 years.
That has gone away for almost 90 years.
Reality is the GOP is a carcass, needy of internment, which
chooses buffoons such as Trump as leaders.

[DCPatriot]

Damnit!  The walls are closing in....     

[Formerly Once-Ler]

The GOP was ascendant from Lincoln to Hoover which gave
them control of Congress and the Courts for some 70 years.
That has gone away for almost 90 years.
Reality is the GOP is a carcass, needy of internment, which
chooses buffoons such as Trump as leaders.

The GOP has conceded a lot of ground from spending to morality, military strength and commerce.
However, nature abhors a vacuum and necessity is the mother of invention.
If the rats don't co-opt those issues and the voters motivated by them, then a new party will arise to champion them.
And then the GOP will co-opt those issues from the new party once again, but after they have lost a few elections.

At least that is what my lucky-astrology-mood app tells me

[Smokin Joe]

So ... ethnic groups vote monolithically? The Dems already got bit in 2016, making that assumption - Trump was the first R Presidential candidate in decades (IIRC) to get more than 10% of "the black vote". People are not , are not herd animals, are more complex.

You have the point. The only prayer the pubbies have is to appeal to the common factors among us all who just want to keep more of what we earn, make a decent living, provide for our families, and have reasonably secure homes.

The 'Country Club' Party has to break that image, get in the trenches with ordinary folks who get dirty when they work, and can't afford to get snooty, ever, much less to be painted as 'racist', or it is going to lose.

[Smokin Joe]

The GOP was ascendant from Lincoln to Hoover which gave
them control of Congress and the Courts for some 70 years.
That has gone away for almost 90 years.
Reality is the GOP is a carcass, needy of internment, which
chooses buffoons such as Trump as leaders.

What did they want? It wasn't Cruz, more like Kasich or Jebbie. They 'settled' for Trump, figuring they could make deals with him, and then proceeded to not move forward on any of the seminal issues, slow walking until midterms to take the standard beating and have an excuse for not getting anything done.

[TomSea]

One has to get more of the black vote, even 5 MORE percentage points will do... and the same thing goes with Hispanics. Just seek their vote. It's the only thing that will really work.

Tell, ask them, "aren't things better now?"

The First Black President: Twice as Many Voters Say TRUMP Better for Blacks Than Barack Obama
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/06/the-first-black-president-twice-as-many-voters-say-trump-better-for-blacks-than-barack-obama/

People are smartening up, I hope enough people are, the Democrats will have us retrogressing in no time in the White House.

[Right_in_Virginia]

‘Not a Single’ Demographic Trend ‘Favors Republicans’ in Elections

They never do, and yet ......   

[skeeter]

So ... ethnic groups vote monolithically? The Dems already got bit in 2016, making that assumption - Trump was the first R Presidential candidate in decades (IIRC) to get more than 10% of "the black vote". People are not , are not herd animals, are more complex.

Well it seem so in CA, as you know. And as California goes...

The question is, looking at the sorry condition of things here will they tie cause and effect together and start spreading their vote more evenly in this state in the future? The rat call for racial solidarity to corral votes is a powerful tactic & will take much to overcome - if it can be done in this state then I'll feel better about the nation's prospects.

[Absalom]

The GOP has conceded a lot of ground from spending to morality, military strength and commerce.
However, nature abhors a vacuum and necessity is the mother of invention.
If the rats don't co-opt those issues and the voters motivated by them, then a new party will arise to champion them.
And then the GOP will co-opt those issues from the new party once again, but after they have lost a few elections.
At least that is what my lucky-astrology-mood app tells me

-----------------------------
Your intuition is correct!

[Free Vulcan]

So why then in '18 did the Dems have to 1) spend a boatload of money, 2) run their canidates as moderates, 3) and 'ballot harvest' in CA to win a bunch of thin margin races for a slim majority in the House?

[Smokin Joe]

So why then in '18 did the Dems have to 1) spend a boatload of money, 2) run their canidates as moderates, 3) and 'ballot harvest' in CA to win a bunch of thin margin races for a slim majority in the House?

The buses that haul around the multidistrict voters broke down?

THe question is one of whether the new exodus of Conservatives from Cali has tilted the playing field back in favor of the Dems. Eliminating the Cali conservatives has been an effect of policy there.
Many of those same folks will go to places like Texas where they will be considered liberal by the locals....

[Free Vulcan]

The buses that haul around the multidistrict voters broke down?

THe question is one of whether the new exodus of Conservatives from Cali has tilted the playing field back in favor of the Dems. Eliminating the Cali conservatives has been an effect of policy there.
Many of those same folks will go to places like Texas where they will be considered liberal by the locals....

Point is they had to go all out to eke out a slim majority on slim margin races.

Now they've jumped into the fruit loop patch, and do they think the swing voters are going to follow?

Indies generally vote far below the party registered, but their numbers nearly double from gubanatorial to presidential elections.

Right now Dems are tanking 20+ points with Indies, well enough to get smoked in those same districts this time around.

[Smokin Joe]

Point is they had to go all out to eke out a slim majority on slim margin races.

Now they've jumped into the fruit loop patch, and do they think the swing voters are going to follow?

Indies generally vote far below the party registered, but their numbers nearly double from gubanatorial to presidential elections.

Right now Dems are tanking 20+ points with Indies, well enough to get smoked in those same districts this time around.

Well, I hope the effects are so profound that it will give those conservatives left the incentive to remain and fight. Not to be unkind, but those selfsame folks who have become accustomed to Cali politics as they are often result in the purpling of serious red districts elsewhere because they are used to so much significantly more liberal policy that is in serious contrast to local politics elsewhere.

[Free Vulcan]

Well, I hope the effects are so profound that it will give those conservatives left the incentive to remain and fight. Not to be unkind, but those selfsame folks who have become accustomed to Cali politics as they are often result in the purpling of serious red districts elsewhere because they are used to so much significantly more liberal policy that is in serious contrast to local politics elsewhere.

Cali worries me. With their 'ballot harvesting' fraud crap, and I agree that conservatives are likely fleeing the state, Cali has enough seats via all their illegals to make it difficult to have a majority in the House.

[Smokin Joe]

Cali worries me. With their 'ballot harvesting' fraud crap, and I agree that conservatives are likely fleeing the state, Cali has enough seats via all their illegals to make it difficult to have a majority in the House.

That's what really ticks me off about this crap with the illegals.
To count people who aren't citizens in the census, at all, can throw off the number of Representatives in the House, and if even by one seat, I have been deprived of legitimate representation (mine has less weight, being diluted by the shift in representatives) by people who aren't even Americans. That's unconstitutional.

But for Cali, to do so in state, deprives their Citizens of Representation, and sure enough they're taxed.
That's a familiar theme....
Taxation without Representation...

[Free Vulcan]

That's what really ticks me off about this crap with the illegals.
To count people who aren't citizens in the census, at all, can throw off the number of Representatives in the House, and if even by one seat, I have been deprived of legitimate representation (mine has less weight, being diluted by the shift in representatives) by people who aren't even Americans. That's unconstitutional.

But for Cali, to do so in state, deprives their Citizens of Representation, and sure enough they're taxed.
That's a familiar theme....
Taxation without Representation...

I know dude, especially when Roberts flips us all the bird with some specious fiat reasoning of 'I don't trust your motives' to deny having the citizenship question in the census.

How about exactly what you said, Taxation w/o Representation, the very foundation of this Nation?

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

That's what really ticks me off about this crap with the illegals.
To count people who aren't citizens in the census, at all, can throw off the number of Representatives in the House, and if even by one seat, I have been deprived of legitimate representation (mine has less weight, being diluted by the shift in representatives) by people who aren't even Americans. That's unconstitutional.

But for Cali, to do so in state, deprives their Citizens of Representation, and sure enough they're taxed.
That's a familiar theme....
Taxation without Representation...

Unfortunately, I wouldn't call it unconstitutional.  Sect 2 of Am 14, specifically uses "person" for representation, and separately uses "citizen" for penalizing states for interfering with voting rights.  To me, that makes a clear distinction between "person" and "citizen", and specifies that representatives are NOT based only on citizens.  Which sucks, but it's what it says, IMO.