Can a American Republican ever be elected president of the USA again?

Some time ago I came across a article by one of my favourite political observers, the political cartoon artist J.J. McCullough of FilibusterCartoons. The article was known as "Can a Republican ever be elected president again?" It was a intresting article which observed this chart by Peter Brimelow. Peter Brimelow's case was that the Republicans are declining in the support needed to gain the Presidency, issuing the issue of immigration among the main factors. The article made some intresting points.

The 27th of August this year FilibusterCartoons released a cartoon with article called "Romney sneaks in" which theories the possibilities of the Republican Party's future on their current stances. Four theories were made: here are they rounded up:

THEORY NUMBER ONE: The Republican Party will continue its current trend of demanding pure ideological hegemony within its caucus, which will lead to a further parliamentization of Congressional governance.

THEORY NUMBER TWO: parliamentization and hegemony will lead to a growing need for a more powerful party leadership hierarchy.

THEORY NUMBER THREE: assuming Romney loses, the GOP will run a more conservative candidate in 2016.

THEORY NUMBER FOUR: America might become a one-party state at the presidential level due to the negative consequences of everything mentioned above.

Click to expand...

Basically there is a high chance of America following Japan and post-apartied South Africa in becoming general democratic nations to have power based around a single party, not from the oppressive force that one party but of siturations allowing an enviroment for political molopory for the single power when it comes to votes. The Republicans are going to remain a high chance of holding onto seats but not for the Presidental seat it is suggested.

We must compare the American model to other democratic models along with issues on the fame work of the Republican Party and of the possible future of the Republican Party.

Now as FilibusterCartoons says:

So… what are your thoughts?

Click to expand...

Latinos are pretty socially conservative (<=> religious), aren't they? I could see the Republican party dropping/easing its' immigration standpoints and joining the Latinos to their bases.
Such a realignment could happen pretty quickly actually, maybe 2 or 3 cycles. How long did it take for the South to turn Republican in the Civil Rights era?

American political trends are usually very fluid. Of course a Republican will probably get elected again, if not this time then within two cycles. What determines what party has the advantage usually has to do with whatever hot button issue is popular at the time and which party sides the the general consensus.

This was a popular line of thinking in 2008, and I still think there is some truth to it. Midyear election cycles are typically way whiter than presidential years, which is part of the reason we had a Tea Party landslide in 2010. Mitt Romney has at least a 50-50 chance of winning this year, but multiple GOP strategists are concerned about the long term impact of demographic changes.

Right now, Democrats get about 96% of the Black Vote. They got about 66% of the Hispanic vote in 2008, and all polls are showing a similar margin this year. The Asian vote also tends towards Democrats, although not by as much of a margin (I think it's in the high 50s). When you combine that with the increasing margin with women voters, the "browning" of lots of states on the EV map, and you've got a demographic time bomb.

If the national Republicans do not grow their electoral coalition beyond Evangelicals, Mormons, Rich People and less educated White Men, they will lose every election. Maybe not in 2014....but soon after that. The math just doesn't add up.

Republicans should do much better than 66-33 with Latinos. Latent racism is the reason they're not.

They will never become irrelevant though. They'll hold the South for another 75 years.

But the your presidential election is indirect. An increase in the minority demographics in Republican leaning states can actually, despite their Democratic votes, increase the Republican share of the electoral college.

Never underestimate the ability of a Democrat to blow an election. Republicans will win because Democrats suck at politics.

downtown said:

This was a popular line of thinking in 2008, and I still think there is some truth to it. Midyear election cycles are typically way whiter than presidential years, which is part of the reason we had a Tea Party landslide in 2010. Mitt Romney has at least a 50-50 chance of winning this year, but multiple GOP strategists are concerned about the long term impact of demographic changes.

Right now, Democrats get about 96% of the Black Vote. They got about 66% of the Hispanic vote in 2008, and all polls are showing a similar margin this year. The Asian vote also tends towards Democrats, although not by as much of a margin (I think it's in the high 50s). When you combine that with the increasing margin with women voters, the "browning" of lots of states on the EV map, and you've got a demographic time bomb.

If the national Republicans do not grow their electoral coalition beyond Evangelicals, Mormons, Rich People and less educated White Men, they will lose every election. Maybe not in 2014....but soon after that. The math just doesn't add up.

Republicans should do much better than 66-33 with Latinos. Latent racism is the reason they're not.

They will never become irrelevant though. They'll hold the South for another 75 years.

Click to expand...

True, however it is not uncommon to have shifts in demographics. The most well-known example is the shift of white southern voters from Dem to GOP in the middle of the twentieth century. Some political analysts state that the Latino vote would be vastly conservative if it weren’t for the GOP’s stance in the immigration issue. In fact, the native born Latino vote is either 50/50 or slightly conservative.

But if the party swaps to accept all the Latino immigrants, they'll lose all the poor white men, and possibly some of the rich ones as well. They really can't afford that.

History_Buff said:

But if the party swaps to accept all the Latino immigrants, they'll lose all the poor white men, and possibly some of the rich ones as well. They really can't afford that.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's quite true.

I'd expect that the immigration issue would find a solution in the next 10-15 years, plus add that to growing discontent with the Dems and a switch would happen.

Agarwaen said:

But the your presidential election is indirect. An increase in the minority demographics in Republican leaning states can actually, despite their Democratic votes, increase the Republican share of the electoral college.

Click to expand...

I think the only place where this is happening is Texas, and that's a state that Democrats think they will be able to flip in about 2 more presidential cycles. The other states where we are seeing the migration is in Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina and Virgina...all "red" states that are turning blue.

downtown said:

I think the only place where this is happening is Texas, and that's a state that Democrats think they will be able to flip in about 2 more presidential cycles. The other states where we are seeing the migration is in Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina and Virgina...all "red" states that are turning blue.

Click to expand...

Again, for three of those states the bluing is due to a demographic that could be changed to another party.

"Could" is the important word in your sentence though ... it requires that the Republicans would actually do something to achieve that goal. And as History_Buff noted, if they do so clumsily, they could lose their gains in other demographics.

downtown said:

I think the only place where this is happening is Texas, and that's a state that Democrats think they will be able to flip in about 2 more presidential cycles. The other states where we are seeing the migration is in Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina and Virgina...all "red" states that are turning blue.

Click to expand...

How would the dems ever get Texas? Texas is like the most conservative state in the country isn't it?

A lot can change in 2 Presidential cycles Dommy

GhostWriter16 said:

How would the dems ever get Texas? Texas is like the most conservative state in the country isn't it?

Click to expand...

Not really. Sure there are a lot of rural areas, but a couple large cities (cities are always to almost always blue) coupled with a sizeable latino population makes Texas not necessarily a vast republican stronghold.

Gen.Mannerheim said:

Again, for three of those states the bluing is due to a demographic that could be changed to another party.

Click to expand...

As opposed to other demographics?

GhostWriter16 said:

How would the dems ever get Texas? Texas is like the most conservative state in the country isn't it?

Click to expand...

If you are going by the presidential vote, then the most conservative states are probably Wyoming, Oklahoma, and Utah. The larger states like California and Texas tend to be closer to 55/45 in favor of their preferred candidate in a two-party race. Add in all the usual caveats on cities and Latinos like were mentioned above.

Fun side fact: the first Democratic Party candidate to win the presidency without the state of Texas was Bill Clinton in 1992.

GhostWriter16 said:

How would the dems ever get Texas? Texas is like the most conservative state in the country isn't it?

Click to expand...

California was a Republican stronghold until Bill Clinton won it in 1992. (Home state of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. )
Pretty much the same thing that happened to California is happening in Texas right now... the rising latino and urban populations means the rural conservative vote is marginalized.

dutchfire said:

Latinos are pretty socially conservative (<=> religious), aren't they? I could see the Republican party dropping/easing its' immigration standpoints and joining the Latinos to their bases?

Click to expand...

Blacks are pretty socially conservative too and supported the "Party of Lincoln" for a century. Goodwill only lasts so long when a party becomes antagonistic to your interests. Repubs pay no lip service to Latinos and hope abortion and constant harping on "family values" will be enough.

GhostWriter16 said:

How would the dems ever get Texas? Texas is like the most conservative state in the country isn't it?

Click to expand...

Not on the border, not among Latinos, and not in most of the major cities. Once the cracks start appearing, the inmates will escape.

Super55 said:

California was a Republican stronghold until Bill Clinton won it in 1992. (Home state of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. )
Pretty much the same thing that happened to California is happening in Texas right now... the rising latino and urban populations means the rural conservative vote is marginalized.

Click to expand...

Yup, and Clinton won it because Pete Wilson managed to make every non-white person think the state republican party was out to get them.

Texas has a few liberal cities and the border areas. Eventually, enough young professionals and latinos will move in to outnumber the wacos and dalllas suburbs.