Politics

[NDgradstudent]

I am going to hate myself for asking, but what are these "obvious reasons" you speak of? Ideology?

You hate yourself for wanting to know the truth?

In the case of black and Hispanic Democratic voters (in Detroit and similar places), there are several reasons. The Democrats support more handouts than the Republicans, and these groups use welfare in massive disproportion to their population size (blacks and Hispanics account for 63% of TANF recipients and 30% of the population). One-third (!) of TANF recipients are from California, which helps explain the Democratic lock on the state. Support for affirmative action, relaxed policing, etc., also explains this, but the economic condition is paramount.

 

[RDU Irish]

I came across this recently. Worth looking at IMO.

Very compelling piece. Given the larger audience for this debate, I think you liberal hacks have a point regarding a lost opportunity to expand the base.

How exactly do Republicans go about winning over Hispanics then? (Lets be honest, black community is firmly entrenched in the Dems back pocket). Would Rubio as VP be enough to counter? Obviously anyone with a combative immigration stance screws that pooch but Bush had a reasonable measured approach. Only one that seemed to embrace the fact that immigration is a great fuel for growth. Is there a way to call out the hypocrisy of Democrats (yet again) claiming to be your best friend while doing nothing to fix the problem when they have a chance?

I agree that the pro-life rhetoric is alienating as well. Walker lost points with me coming out so staunchly pro-life, not because I disagree with his philosophy but because I think it alienates so many voters.

 

[Wild Bill]

How exactly do Republicans go about winning over Hispanics then? (Lets be honest, black community is firmly entrenched in the Dems back pocket). Would Rubio as VP be enough to counter? Obviously anyone with a combative immigration stance screws that pooch but Bush had a reasonable measured approach. Only one that seemed to embrace the fact that immigration is a great fuel for growth. Is there a way to call out the hypocrisy of Democrats (yet again) claiming to be your best friend while doing nothing to fix the problem when they have a chance?

Those that came here to work will eventually earn enough to start investing/building wealth. Just like most other immigrants have done, they'll vote to keep more of what they earn in their own pockets.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

How exactly do Republicans go about winning over Hispanics then?

This isn't specific to the Hispanic vote, but I'd attribute the GOP's long decline to the incoherence of its platform, which is a mix of economic liberalism and vaguely Christian social policy. The Democrats are at least consistent in their philosophy.

They either need to go full libertarian and try to distinguish themselves from Progressives within the narrow confines of liberalism, or to ditch the economic liberalism and embrace a coherent alternative to liberalism (as many of the center-left Christian Democrat parties have done in Europe).

If they don't, the American mainstream will continue to drift Progressive, and Republicans 20 years from now will be occupying the same territory as today's Democrats.

 

[GoIrish41]

You hate yourself for wanting to know the truth?

In the case of black and Hispanic Democratic voters (in Detroit and similar places), there are several reasons. The Democrats support more handouts than the Republicans, and these groups use welfare in massive disproportion to their population size (blacks and Hispanics account for 63% of TANF recipients and 30% of the population). One-third (!) of TANF recipients are from California, which helps explain the Democratic lock on the state. Support for affirmative action, relaxed policing, etc., also explains this, but the economic condition is paramount.

Thanks for all that "truth" Mr. Romney. So do you think there is any room for policy flexibility to pull off the sweep of the remaining 53 percent that will be required to win the election? Or are you going to just lean on bigotry and denial to sooth your it hurt when you are licking your wounds after the inevitable loss of the election at the hands of the Democratic candidate who rides a wave of inevitability into the White House? You have to adjust your political positions when they do not match voter desires. The thing about our system of government is that all American adults -- even those rely dark skinned ones -- can vote. Convincing them to vote for your party requires you to convince them that you have better ideas than the other party. This has been the great failing of the GOP and it is an easier sell if the party adjusts instead of expecting the voters to suddenly change their minds.

 

[IrishLax]

Those that came here to work will eventually earn enough to start investing/building wealth. Just like most other immigrants have done, they'll vote to keep more of what they earn in their own pockets.

It's funny, because to your point I never forget this one quote from my grandmother. Years ago when talking politics she offhandedly remarked that for decades she always voted Democrat because "that's what you were supposed to do" being a Latino and Catholic. People forget how strongly Catholics used to lean Democrat when they were a marginalized group.

So I asked her why she now is very much so identifies as a Republican. And she said "one day I looked around and realized none of the people like me were voting for them anymore."

Basically, she got old (one point in the Republican column) and was no longer scrubbing toilets (literally... which is ironic given the Kelly Osborne Quotes) for minimum wage as my grandfather had used the GI bill to go to college and then got a job with IBM. Old + savings = Republican, young + broke = Democrat.

It cracked me up because for all the posturing, that was how simple the math was. Appealing to "Latino" voters is not something you can just do... it's not a question of platform. It's a symptom of Latinos in this country being the most marginalized ethnic group (speaking strictly on median income, not other social issues) and Democrats being the party for self-identifying "have nots."

 

[NDgradstudent]

Thanks for all that "truth" Mr. Romney. So do you think there is any room for policy flexibility to pull off the sweep of the remaining 53 percent that will be required to win the election? Or are you going to just lean on bigotry and denial to sooth your it hurt when you are licking your wounds after the inevitable loss of the election at the hands of the Democratic candidate who rides a wave of inevitability into the White House? You have to adjust your political positions when they do not match voter desires. The thing about our system of government is that all American adults -- even those rely dark skinned ones -- can vote. Convincing them to vote for your party requires you to convince them that you have better ideas than the other party. This has been the great failing of the GOP and it is an easier sell if the party adjusts instead of expecting the voters to suddenly change their minds.

You're welcome for that truth. I notice you did not quarrel with it, or try to refute it, despite putting it in scare-quotes. The fact is that as the Democrats become more and more of the racial minority party, more whites will vote Republican. The coalition of the fringes cannot hold together easily. For that reason and others, it won't be too late to fix this for some years. The problem is that the GOP is owned by donors who do not want to cut down on immigration, despite the wishes of GOP voters.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Those that came here to work will eventually earn enough to start investing/building wealth. Just like most other immigrants have done, they'll vote to keep more of what they earn in their own pockets.

Among non-white demographic groups, Asian-Americans have for decades been the best integrated and most economically successful. And yet the group still votes strongly Democratic. How does that square with your theory?

 

[IrishLax]

Among non-white demographic groups, Asian-Americans have for decades been the best integrated and most economically successful. And yet the group still votes strongly Democratic. How does that square with your theory?

I'd personally point towards the correlation of "education emphasis" to voting blue. People with more/advanced degrees, career academics, and generally people who list education as "highly important" tend to vote Blue. Asians disproportionately check those boxes, and ergo that is why their "Democrat" numbers are equivocal to Hispanics.

 

[GoIrish41]

You're welcome for that truth. I notice you did not quarrel with it, or try to refute it, despite putting it in scare-quotes. The fact is that as the Democrats become more and more of the racial minority party, more whites will vote Republican. The coalition of the fringes cannot hold together easily. For that reason and others, it won't be too late to fix this for some years. The problem is that the GOP is owned by donors who do not want to cut down on immigration, despite the wishes of GOP voters.

I didn't quarrel with it because I don't wish to get in a debate about race with a white supremist ... again. You would be mistaken if you took the lack of an argument to mean I thought you were right about it. The point of this conversation is to identify the reasons that the GOP can't seem to get out of its own way in national elections. Frankly, it has a little to do with people like you who say stupid shit in public and identify with the Republican party. That happens enough and people like me begin to associate the party with stupid shit. You can try to find all the racially charged rationale for the GOP to be losing its footing, but it is not about race. It is about indifference for the poor and the middle class and the fact that the policies you advocate for pushing more and more people into more desperate economic situations, and thereby feeding the democrats all the new voters they need to keep beating you election after election. I would think that someone who claims to be a grad student would at least acknowledge the possibility that there may be more than base racial reasons for your party's troubles. Your party is out of sync with the country and unwilling to adjust. Immigration is only one issue. You are wandering in the wilderness on many others, too. Gay marriage, aid to the poor, education, prison reform, climate change, renewable energy .... The list goes on and on.

 

[Cackalacky]

I wouldn't call it "fun". Pretty depressing place, actually. But at least there's self-respect and logical consistency here.

I missed this earlier haha. Psssst.... when you are trying to convince someone to see your position, don't sandbag yourself.....

Veritate, what Whiskeyjack really means is that is totally awesome being free of the political bottomlands and its even cooler hanging out with likeminded persons who wont coalesce into their own dogmatic political party unless an opportunity arises to get shit done.

 

[Wild Bill]

Among non-white demographic groups, Asian-Americans have for decades been the best integrated and most economically successful. And yet the group still votes strongly Democratic. How does that square with your theory?

I'd personally point towards the correlation of "education emphasis" to voting blue. People with more/advanced degrees, career academics, and generally people who list education as "highly important" tend to vote Blue. Asians disproportionately check those boxes, and ergo that is why their "Democrat" numbers are equivocal to Hispanics.

I don't know much about the Asian community. Perhaps ACamp can help out on this one.

I think Lax brings up a good point with education. Most Asians, at least in this area, tend to live within in the city limits and really don't have a R option at the local level. That may not hold true in other parts of the country. Jewish immigrants are very similar in this regard. Even affluent Jews tend to vote democrat. There are probably more than a few reasons.

My parents are immigrants and I grew up in a community full of immigrants. They all came here to escape the hopelessness of socialism. Economic policy is the only issue they tend to care about with respect to politics. If you're the party of "earn a living and climb the social ladder (or something similar)" I think you're going to pick up votes from immigrants. Maybe not the majority but you'll get some. And that's really the best and only shot, IMO.

 

[NDgradstudent]

This isn't specific to the Hispanic vote, but I'd attribute the GOP's long decline to the incoherence of its platform, which is a mix of economic liberalism and vaguely Christian social policy. The Democrats are at least consistent in their philosophy.

They either need to go full libertarian and try to distinguish themselves from Progressives within the narrow confines of liberalism, or to ditch the economic liberalism and embrace a coherent alternative to liberalism (as many of the center-left Christian Democrat parties have done in Europe).

If they don't, the American mainstream will continue to drift Progressive, and Republicans 20 years from now will be occupying the same territory as today's Democrats.

The "incoherent" platform is basically the same one that Reagan stood on, Gingrich stood on, etc. This is pretty much what American conservatism has always stood for. This is what Burke stood for. The real change has been an embrace of a hawkish foreign policy. Demographic change is the explanation.

Among non-white demographic groups, Asian-Americans have for decades been the best integrated and most economically successful. And yet the group still votes strongly Democratic. How does that square with your theory?

This theory is indeed very misleading. White Catholics are still less Republican than comparable white Protestants, even though a sizable majority of white Catholics are now Republican. Old voting patterns die hard, and basically never completely go away.

As for Asians specifically, it is important to bear a few things in mind. First of all, Jews are the most successful group in America, and they vote as Democratic today as in 1932. Part of this is that you feel marginalized, or regard yourself as besieged, even though you are rich. Mormons actually were besieged at one point, but aspire to be like the typical American. They are not contemptuous of, say, Baptists living in Alabama. Second, a relatively large group of Asians -like Jews- tend to be secular, which means many of them are uncomfortable with the GOP and the potential vote ceiling is lower. Third, Asians tend to live in highly dense areas and not to be homeowners, both of which correlate with Democratic voting. Fourth, their vote varies a great deal both nationally and between different states. The Hispanic and (especially) the black vote do not vary as much. Fifth, according to Pew, a majority of Asians say that they want a "bigger government providing more services." Such views are not correlated with support for the GOP.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I'd personally point towards the correlation of "education emphasis" to voting blue. People with more/advanced degrees, career academics, and generally people who list education as "highly important" tend to vote Blue. Asians disproportionately check those boxes, and ergo that is why their "Democrat" numbers are equivocal to Hispanics.

That's a good observation, but I'd put a different spin on it. People who put a heavy emphasis on education and view education as primarily instrumental (a way to improve one's station in life) tend to lean leftward; so it's still ideological. My family also puts a heavy emphasis on education, but only on the classical, Catholic, virtue-building sort; and as you might expect, we do not lean Democratic.

I don't know much about the Asian community. Perhaps ACamp can help out on this one.

I think Lax brings up a good point with education. Most Asians, at least in this area, tend to live within in the city limits and really don't have a R option at the local level. That may not hold true in other parts of the country. Jewish immigrants are very similar in this regard. Even affluent Jews tend to vote democrat. There are probably more than a few reasons.

My parents are immigrants and I grew up in a community full of immigrants. They all came here to escape the hopelessness of socialism. Economic policy is the only issue they tend to care about with respect to politics. If you're the party of "earn a living and climb the social ladder (or something similar)" I think you're going to pick up votes from immigrants. Maybe not the majority but you'll get some. And that's really the best and only shot, IMO.

Well, there's two significant immigrant groups (East Asians and Jews) who don't fit with your theory. I'm trying to think of a significant immigrant group that might... maybe Indians? Regardless, given the two counter-examples you just brought up, I doubt the GOP can afford to gamble its future on immigrant groups becoming wealthy and suddenly taking to Friedman and von Mises.

The "incoherent" platform is basically the same one that Reagan stood on, Gingrich stood on, etc. This is pretty much what American conservatism has always stood for. This is what Burke stood for. The real change has been an embrace of a hawkish foreign policy. Demographic change is the explanation.

I agree that this is what political conservatism has looked like in Protestant-majority nations for quite some time (what that means for Catholics is another question entirely). The "Religious Right" has only been a thing since Reagan, though, and it has all but disintegrated by this point.

This theory is indeed very misleading. White Catholics are still less Republican than comparable white Protestants, even though a sizable majority of white Catholics are now Republican. Old voting patterns die hard, and basically never completely go away.

Yes, and the Catholic trend toward the GOP is almost entirely due to the Democrats becoming avid eugenicists post-Roe v Wade.

As for Asians specifically, it is important to bear a few things in mind. First of all, Jews are the most successful group in America, and they vote as Democratic today as in 1932. Part of this is that you feel marginalized, or regard yourself as besieged, even though you are rich.

Non-Protestants have been marginalized in this country for a long time. Irish Catholics in late 19th century America weren't considered "white", and faced wide spread discrimination. That fact has only been mitigated by American Catholics becoming WASPy in the hopes of integrating (which has been an unmitigated disaster for the Catholic Church in this country).

Mormons actually were besieged at one point, but aspire to be like the typical American. They are not contemptuous of, say, Baptists living in Alabama.

The LDS Church's desire to integrate into mainstream America (and Protestant Christianity in general) is a relatively recent trend. For the vast majority of its history, it was contemptuous of the mainstream (they didn't even self-identify as Christians), and consciously sought to withdraw from American society.

Second, a relatively large group of Asians -like Jews- tend to be secular, which means many of them are uncomfortable with the GOP and the potential vote ceiling is lower.

Yes, though that secularism is also why they find the DNC more ideologically amenable.

Third, Asians tend to live in highly dense areas and not to be homeowners, both of which correlate with Democratic voting.

This is not unconnected from the point directly above. Americans have been self-sorting by ideology for decades.

Point being, I don't think the evidence supports Bill's theory that as immigrant groups become wealthier, they will naturally trend toward the GOP. The Jewish and Asian examples both contradict it.

 

[NDgradstudent]

I didn't quarrel with it because I don't wish to get in a debate about race with a white supremist ... again. You would be mistaken if you took the lack of an argument to mean I thought you were right about it. The point of this conversation is to identify the reasons that the GOP can't seem to get out of its own way in national elections. Frankly, it has a little to do with people like you who say stupid shit in public and identify with the Republican party. That happens enough and people like me begin to associate the party with stupid shit. You can try to find all the racially charged rationale for the GOP to be losing its footing, but it is not about race. It is about indifference for the poor and the middle class and the fact that the policies you advocate for pushing more and more people into more desperate economic situations, and thereby feeding the democrats all the new voters they need to keep beating you election after election. I would think that someone who claims to be a grad student would at least acknowledge the possibility that there may be more than base racial reasons for your party's troubles. Your party is out of sync with the country and unwilling to adjust. Immigration is only one issue. You are wandering in the wilderness on many others, too. Gay marriage, aid to the poor, education, prison reform, climate change, renewable energy .... The list goes on and on.

Reagan won in 1984 with what you would regard as "indifference for the poor and the middle class," etc. He won 60% of the vote and 49 states, in fact. Very few people have been convinced by the "progressive" argument in the past couple decades. In 1988, Bush won 59% of whites and 53% overall; in 2012, Romney won 57% of whites and 47% overall. The difference is the result of the demographic change, not convincing anybody of anything.

 

[GoIrish41]

The "incoherent" platform is basically the same one that Reagan stood on, Gingrich stood on, etc. This is pretty much what American conservatism has always stood for. This is what Burke stood for. The real change has been an embrace of a hawkish foreign policy. Demographic change is the explanation.

Reagan stood on that platform 4 decades ago. It wasn't that great back then and it collapsed when Gingrich stood on it too long. The world has changed a lot since then. I don't know how old you are but I was a teenager when Gipper won the presidency. The world is drastically different than it was back then. Do you think it is safe to drag that rickety old thing again. Bush's fiasco presidency got a lot of people killed when he drug his dumb ass up in that platform. Is it any wonder that some see your party as behind the times? They are watching Dukes of Hazard in their living room and the rest of the country is watching Game of Thrones ... on their phone (that's right, personal cell phones ... Everybody has that technology now that barely existed when Ronnie was battling the Soviet Union, which also no longer exists). It is astonishing that you find it virtuous or something that they have been an immovable ideological object in American politics, even while the society evolved (and in many cases devolved) around them.

Evolve or become extinct! I will leave you with that as advice to your party.

 

[Cackalacky]

I apologize as this bordering on TLDR but this Pew Research Center report details the demographics discussed so far. I find this to be a good primer on which to base discussions on. Seems like we have all touched on a bit of this so far. Maybe this will come in handy later on. This also has some great charts.

APRIL 7, 2015
A Deep Dive Into Party Affiliation
Sharp Differences by Race, Gender, Generation, Education

Democrats hold advantages in party identification among blacks, Asians, Hispanics, well-educated adults and Millennials. Republicans have leads among whites – particularly white men, those with less education and evangelical Protestants – as well as members of the Silent Generation.

Strong Groups for the Democratic and Republican PartiesA new analysis of long-term trends in party affiliation among the public provides a detailed portrait of where the parties stand among various groups in the population. It draws on more than 25,000 interviews conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2014, which allows examination of partisan affiliation across even relatively small racial, ethnic, educational and income subgroups. (Explore detailed tables for 2014 here.)

The share of independents in the public, which long ago surpassed the percentages of either Democrats or Republicans, continues to increase. Based on 2014 data, 39% identify as independents, 32% as Democrats and 23% as Republicans. This is the highest percentage of independents in more than 75 years of public opinion polling. (For a timeline of party affiliation among the public since 1939, see this interactive feature.)

When the partisan leanings of independents are taken into account, 48% either identify as Democrats or lean Democratic; 39% identify as Republicans or lean Republican. The gap in leaned party affiliation has held fairly steady since 2009, when Democrats held a 13-point advantage (50% to 37%).

Why Look at Party Identification Among the Public – Not Just Voters?
A closer look at …

Race and ethnicity. Republicans hold a 49%-40% lead over the Democrats in leaned party identification among whites. The GOP’s advantage widens to 21 points among white men who have not completed college (54%-33%) and white southerners (55%-34%). The Democrats hold an 80%-11% advantage among blacks, lead by close to three-to-one among Asian Americans (65%-23%) and by more than two-to-one among Hispanics (56%-26%).

Gender. Women lean Democratic by 52%-36%; men are evenly divided (44% identify as Democrats or lean Democratic; 43% affiliate with or lean toward the GOP). Gender differences are evident in nearly all subgroups: For instance, Republicans lead among married men (51%-38%), while married women are evenly divided (44% Republican, 44% Democratic). Democrats hold a substantial advantage among all unmarried adults, but their lead in leaned partisan identification is greater among unmarried women (57%-29%) than among unmarried men (51%-34%).

Education. Democrats lead by 22 points (57%-35%) in leaned party identification among adults with post-graduate degrees. The Democrats’ edge is narrower among those with college degrees or some post-graduate experience (49%-42%), and those with less education (47%-39%). Across all educational categories, women are more likely than men to affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic. The Democrats’ advantage is 35 points (64%-29%) among women with post-graduate degrees, but only eight points (50%-42%) among post-grad men.

Generations. Millennials continue to be the most Democratic age cohort; 51% identify as Democrats or lean Democratic, compared with 35% who identify with the GOP or lean Republican. There are only slight differences in partisan affiliation between older and younger millennials. Republicans have a four-point lead among the Silent Generation (47%-43%), the most Republican age cohort.

Religion. Republicans lead in leaned party identification by 48 points among Mormons and 46 points among white evangelical Protestants. Younger white evangelicals (those under age 35) are about as likely older white evangelicals to identify as Republicans or lean Republican. Adults who have no religious affiliation lean Democratic by a wide margins (36 points). Jews lean Democratic by roughly two-to-one (61% to 31%). The balance of leaned partisan affiliation among white Catholics and white mainline Protestants closely resembles that of all whites.

Party Affiliation 1992-2014

Share of Political Independents Continues to IncreaseThe biggest change in partisan affiliation in recent years is the growing share of Americans who decline to affiliate with either party: 39% call themselves independents, 32% identify as Democrats and 23% as Republicans, based on aggregated data from 2014.

The rise in the share of independents has been particularly dramatic over the past decade: In 2004, 33% of Americans identified as Democrats, 30% as independents and 29% as Republicans. Since then, the percentage of independents has increased nine points while Republican affiliation has fallen six points. Democratic affiliation has shown less change over this period; it rose to 35% in 2008, fell to 32% in 2011 and has changed little since then (currently 32%).

Most of those who identify as independents lean toward a party. And in many respects, partisan leaners have attitudes that are similar to those of partisans – they just prefer not to identify with a party. (See this appendix to our 2014 polarization report for an explainer on partisan “leaners.”)

The balance of leaned partisan affiliation has changed little in recent years: 48% identify with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic, while 39% identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. Democrats have led in leaned party identification among the public for most of the past two decades.

Gender Gap in Party Identification PersistsAmong both men and women, increasing percentages describe themselves as independents. Men, however, continue to be more likely than women to identify as independents (45% vs. 35% in 2014).

When partisan leanings are taken into account, men are divided (44% Democratic, 43% Republican). That is little changed from recent years, but in 2009, 45% of men affiliated with the Democratic Party or leaned Democratic, while 40% identified as Republican or leaned toward the GOP.

Since 1990, women have been consistently more likely than men to identify as Democrats or lean Democratic. Democrats hold a 16-point advantage in leaned party identification among women (52%-36%, based on 2014 data).

Party ID by Race, Education

More Whites Lean Republican Than in 2009; Blacks Overwhelmingly Align with Democratic PartyThere continue to be stark divisions in partisan leaning by race and ethnicity: Fully 64% of blacks identify as Democrats, compared with 25% of whites. Whites are far more likely than blacks to describe themselves as independents (40% vs. 26%) or Republicans (30% vs. 5%).

As is the case with whites, Hispanics are more likely to describe themselves as independents (44%) than Democrats (34%) or Republicans (13%). More than twice as many Hispanics either affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic than identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP (56% vs. 26%), based on interviews conducted in English and Spanish in 2014.

Party identification among Asian Americans has shown little change in recent years. Nearly half of Asian-Americans (46%) are political independents, 37% identify as Democrats while just 11% affiliate with the GOP. When the partisan leanings of independents are included, 65% of Asian Americans identify as Democrats or lean Democratic compared with just 23% who identify as Republicans or lean Republican. This data is based on interviews conducted in English.

More College Graduates Lean DemocraticDifferences in partisan identification across educational categories have remained fairly stable in recent years, with one exception: Highly-educated people increasingly identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party.

About a third (34%) of those with a college degree or more education identify as Democrats, compared with 24% who identify as Republicans; 39% are independents. In 1992, Republicans held a seven-point lead among those with at least a college degree (34% to 27%), while 37% were independents.

Democrats now hold a 12-point lead (52% to 40%) in leaned party identification among those with at least a college degree, up from just a four-point difference as recently as 2010 (48% to 44%). There has been less change since 2010 in the partisan leanings of those with less education.

Democrats’ Growing Advantage in Party Identification Among Post-GradsCurrently, those who have attended college but have not received a degree lean Democratic 47% to 42%; Democrats hold a 10-point lead in leaned party identification among those with no more than a high school education (47% to 37%).

The Democrats’ wide lead in partisan identification among highly-educated adults is largely the result of a growing advantage among those with any post-graduate experience. A majority (56%) of those who have attended graduate school identify with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic, compared with 36% who align with or lean toward the GOP.

Among those who have received a college degree but have no post-graduate experience, 48% identify as Democrats or lean Democratic, while 43% affiliate with the GOP or lean Republican.

Party ID by Generation

Generation Gap in Partisan AffiliationMillennials remain the most Democratic age cohort: 51% of Millennials (ages 18-34) identify as Democrats or lean Democratic, compared with 35% who identify as Republican or lean Republican. This is little changed in recent years; in 2008, Millennials leaned Democratic by a wider margin (55% to 30%). (For more on Millennials’ political attitudes, see “Millennials in Adulthood,” March 7, 2014.)

The Democrats’ advantage in leaned party identification narrows among Generation Xers (49% to 38%) and Baby Boomers (47% to 41%). And among the Silent Generation, Republicans hold a four-point lead in leaned party affiliation (47%-43%).

In 1992, the Silent Generation leaned Democratic by a wide margin: 52% affiliated with the Democratic Party or leaned Democratic while 38% aligned with or leaned toward the GOP.

White Millennials Are Divided in Partisan Leanings; Older Generations of Whites Lean RepublicanThe Democratic leanings of the Millennials are associated with the greater racial and ethnic diversity among this generation. More than four-in-ten Millennials (44%) are non-white, by far the highest percentage of any age cohort.

Among white Millennials, about as many identify as Republican or lean Republican (45%) as affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic (43%). Older generations of whites lean Republican by about 10 points or more. Among non-whites, all four generations lean Democratic by wide margins, including by 61% to 23% among non-white Millennials.

Religion and Party Identification

White Evangelicals Increasingly Lean RepublicanSince 1992, the share of white evangelical Protestants who align with the GOP has never been higher. About two-thirds (68%) of white evangelicals either identify as Republicans or lean Republican, while just 22% affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic. Since 2007, the percentage of white evangelical Protestants who lean Republican has increased 10 points, while the share who lean Democratic has declined nine points.

The partisan leanings of white mainline Protestants mirror those of all whites: 48% affiliate with (or lean toward) the GOP, while 40% identify as Democrats or lean Democratic. Similarly, black Protestants – like blacks generally – overwhelmingly lean Democratic; 82% identify as Democrats or lean Democratic compared with just 11% who align with the GOP or lean Republican.

Partisan Affiliation Among Catholics Little ChangedParty affiliation among all Catholics is similar to that of the public: 37% describe themselves as independents, 33% as Democrats and 24% as Republicans. About half of Catholics (48%) affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic while 40% identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP.

White Catholics lean Republican by about the same margin as all whites (50% to 41%). Hispanic Catholics lean Democratic by more than two-to-one (58% to 25%). This is little different from the balance of leaned party identification among all Hispanics (56% Democrat vs. 26% Republican).

Mormons Remain Solidly Republican; Jews and Religiously Unaffiliated Lean DemocraticNearly half of Mormons (49%) identify as Republicans, compared with just 12% who identify as Democrats; 35% describe themselves as independents. Fully 70% of Mormons identify as Republicans or lean Republican; fewer than a quarter (22%) lean Democratic.

Jews continue to mostly align with the Democratic Party. Nearly twice as many Jews identify as Democrats or lean Democratic (61%) than identify as Republicans or lean Republican (31%).

People with no religious affiliation increasingly lean toward the Democratic Party. Currently, 61% of those who do not identify with any religion lean Democratic – the highest level in more than two decades of Pew Research Center surveys. Just 25% of the religiously unaffiliated identify as Republicans or lean Republican.

Copyright 2015 Pew Research CenterAboutTerms & ConditionsPrivacy PolicyReprints, Permissions & Use PolicyFeedbackCareers

 

[dshans]

The devide (sic) and concur (sic) stuff...

Color me confuzzled.

Dealing with latin roots – "de-vide," remove sight. "Concur" – agree.

Is this blind agreement???

 

[Cackalacky]

3-D County Based Voter Map
Infographic: A 3-D Map Of Where Votes Were Cast Most
Eschewing solid reds and blues, this infographic uses a palette of purples, graded according to how each county voted.

Since the last election, you’ve seen all stripe of maps purporting to show us what really went on with the presidential race. Campaign spending-cartograms that showed the continental United States as a distended blob; maps that rendered votes as pointillist dots. But this one, created by Princeton Professor Robert Vanderbei, takes a slightly different approach. It’s one of the few that shows the action in three dimensions.

Like some other maps we’ve seen, Vanderbei’s displays votes county by county, eschewing solid reds and blues for a palette of purples, graded according to how each county voted. But what makes Vanderbei’s visualization unique is his use of the z-axis to show how many people voted in these counties. In metropolitan areas, columns shoot up like neon skyscrapers; in flyover country, it’s typically more of a low-rise affair. But the effect is powerful: At a glance, Vanderbei’s map shows not just how the country voted, but where it voted, too.


And that means cities. The democratic lean of places like New York City, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Boston shouldn’t be news to anyone, but seeing the results like this gives you a sense of just how overwhelming the number of voters really is in those densely populated urban centers. And so long as those towers stay blue, it’s why you won’t hear about states like California or New York being in play anytime soon.

Vanderbei, a professor of operations research and financial engineering, made his first "Purple Area" visualization after the 2000 election. He had been reading USA Today when one of the typical "county-by-county, red-blue" graphics caught his eye. That map, he says, "made me wonder why anyone would paint a county-by-county map in such a way as to imply that a county has cast its vote for one candidate or the other. I live in a county that went about 52% republican and 48% democratic in that election. Painting the county red seemed highly misleading."

Vanderbei says he’s played with the idea of a 2-D graphic that accounts for population density or voter turnout, something where these variables are reflected by the intensity of the color, but ultimately the discrepancy between cities and rural areas is so great that you wouldn’t end up with much of a map at all. "The trouble with that approach," he explains, "is that the difference between densely populated places, like Manhattan, and sparsely populated places, like counties in Montana, is so great that a linear intensity scaling renders almost the entire U.S. as virtually black, with just a few of the highly populous counties showing up." And even if he did take that route, the final product wouldn’t be nearly as stunning as this one, available on the Princeton site as an interactive, 50 MB WebGL file. Good visualizations need not be beautiful, but the sci-fi chic look of this 3-D visual certainly doesn’t hurt its chances of grabbing your attention.

It certainly does put into contrast cities verus less populated areas.

 

[Cackalacky]

Very compelling piece. Given the larger audience for this debate, I think you liberal hacks have a point regarding a lost opportunity to expand the base.

How exactly do Republicans go about winning over Hispanics then? (Lets be honest, black community is firmly entrenched in the Dems back pocket). Would Rubio as VP be enough to counter? Obviously anyone with a combative immigration stance screws that pooch but Bush had a reasonable measured approach. Only one that seemed to embrace the fact that immigration is a great fuel for growth. Is there a way to call out the hypocrisy of Democrats (yet again) claiming to be your best friend while doing nothing to fix the problem when they have a chance?

I agree that the pro-life rhetoric is alienating as well. Walker lost points with me coming out so staunchly pro-life, not because I disagree with his philosophy but because I think it alienates so many voters.

I think, and Whiskeyjack mentioned this as well, that if they dropped the economic liberty aspect of their platform or at least de-emphasized it in public and focused on a more true conservative message, I think they could pull a chunck from the white independents of the Boomers and Older Gen Xers. Millenials appear to off the table, especially minority Millenials. They will also have to go amnesty or pathway to citizenship. They need to do it before the Dems do. I have shown above the white population is decreasing and the hispanic is increasing and its not going to get better. If the R's can come up with coherent plans on immigration they could totally swing that hispanic vote to 60-30 their way. But they wont do it because the base will collectively revolt and they have shown they have zero ideas, plans, or solutions for any of our problems right now.

With independent voters at an all time high now and both party bases dwindling, the middle class independent voters are the biggest play for both sides and I think the R's could grab a good chunck of hispanics if they could put together a coherent conservative agenda that doesnt alienate immigrants or those trying to stay and work.

 

[phgreek]

It's a structured debate where in two hours some candidates were given literally 5 minutes to speak to their vision of America. She suggests the nominees are all misogynistic because they didn't call out a buffoon for his statements on a reality show? Did she expect Kasich, who has one minute to defend his position on Medicaid, to begin with an attack on Trump for calling Rosie O'Donnell a pig? Give me a break.

She also said none of the candidates spoke to a path for job creation. Was she watching the same debate as I was? Finally, her third biggest complaint is that none of them brought up the anniversary of the Voting Rights Act. Seriously.. that's what she decides to nitpick? I actually laughed out loud at that one.

The entire interview was political posturing at its best.

I'm shocked no one else but you saw some of this...wow. I was seriously laughing out loud...and people here didn't see an issue with her response. How could you see the debate, understand the format, and then see her response and think...yea, totally reasonable. It was so off it wasn't even offensive...it was comical...

 

[NDgradstudent]

I think, and Whiskeyjack mentioned this as well, that if they dropped the economic liberty aspect of their platform or at least de-emphasized it in public and focused on a more true conservative message, I think they could pull a chunck from the white independents of the Boomers and Older Gen Xers.

"Economic liberty" has been part of a "true conservative message" since Burke. It is one of the things that defines conservative parties around the world.

They will also have to go amnesty or pathway to citizenship. They need to do it before the Dems do. I have shown above the white population is decreasing and the hispanic is increasing and its not going to get better. If the R's can come up with coherent plans on immigration they could totally swing that hispanic vote to 60-30 their way. But they wont do it because the base will collectively revolt and they have shown they have zero ideas, plans, or solutions for any of our problems right now.

There is absolutely no reason to think that passing amnesty would help the GOP win any more Hispanic votes, much less 60% of them. First, not that many care that much about amnesty. Second, why wouldn't they give the Democrats credit for passing it? Third, and finally, amnesty is not suddenly going to make them middle-class, which is the main reason they vote for the Democrats. Reagan's 1986 amnesty won Bush 30% of the Hispanic vote in 1988. Conservatives believe in knowledge from experience, and we have had such calamitous experiences with amnesty that we won't get fooled again.

 

[Cackalacky]

"Economic liberty" has been part of a "true conservative message" since Burke. It is one of the things that defines conservative parties around the world.



There is absolutely no reason to think that passing amnesty would help the GOP win any more Hispanic votes, much less 60% of them. First, not that many care that much about amnesty. Second, why wouldn't they give the Democrats credit for passing it? Third, and finally, amnesty is not suddenly going to make them middle-class, which is the main reason they vote for the Democrats. Reagan's 1986 amnesty won Bush 30% of the Hispanic vote in 1988. Conservatives believe in knowledge from experience, and we have had such calamitous experiences with amnesty that we won't get fooled again.

What we are saying is economic liberty is essentially economic liberalism. Unfortunately the republicans and democrats both are practising corporatism or at best capitalistic cronyism and claiming they are for economic liberalism. That is in no way any thing like true economic liberalism. But the Republicans and Democrats keep calling it this misnomer with no intent of providing true free market capitalism. In fact most of the elite companies and individuals in this country will fight tooth and nail to destroy any competition and they get help and welfare subsidies from the government (both sides).

So when I say they need to drop their economic liberty platform, what I am saying is they need to put their money where their mouth is and get rid of the crony nepotistic legally corrupt corporatism.

As to my last statement, your last sentence corroborates what I said...I think a pathway to citizenship is a more viable and politically astute idea but amnesty may need to be given as well (at somepoint) by whatever party is in power. You pretty much just harped on amnesty.

If the republicans could ACTUALLY come up with a jobs plan along with a pathway to citizenship, it most certainly would pay dividends in the electorate, either in white middle class or the hispanic bloc, but they wont and the base won't allow them to.

 

[Cackalacky]

I'm shocked no one else but you saw some of this...wow. I was seriously laughing out loud...and people here didn't see an issue with her response. How could you see the debate, understand the format, and then see her response and think...yea, totally reasonable. It was so off it wasn't even offensive...it was comical...

I am surprised none of you are granting the same latitude to DWS. She likewise only had 3 minutes to answer three broad questions. Obviously, as the DNC chairperson she has a duty to the party and presented a narrative that was EASILY defendable. You guys can't really be shocked that she reiterated the problems with the Republican demographic given the failed opportunity for the Republicans to present their new found diversity with a woman, Indian, AA, a closeted homosexual, a Hispanic and their own foreign born candidate on stage? Right?

 

[Cackalacky]

Regarding the Hispanic immigration, I came across this recently. It paints a ok fire of the recent Latin American political demographics. Very good read. I think it also provides a point blank conclusion as to why Hispanics, though overwhelmingly Catholic, are in the Democrat camp.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/south-america/2006-05-01/latin-americas-left-turn

 

[ACamp1900]

It's so funny because my wife's family are all Catholic Hispanics of one variation or other and they are all tea party level right wingers...

#sellouts.

 

[yankeehater]

Regarding the Hispanic immigration, I came across this recently. It paints a ok fire of the recent Latin American political demographics. Very good read. I think it also provides a point blank conclusion as to why Hispanics, though overwhelmingly Catholic, are in the Democrat camp.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/south-america/2006-05-01/latin-americas-left-turn

I always wondered this. They seem to hold a lot of the same values as Conservatives.

This may be changing.....3 years ago I started working working with a woman who falls into the above category. Attends church weekly acts very conservatively, but politically votes and believes very leftist. I guess she had been listening over the years to the conservatives in the office and started reading up on things (opened her mind a little). Well, the Planned Parenthood videos changed her completely and pushed her over the edge. She is so negative against what is going on and totally blames the Democrat party since they are labeled "the pro-abortion party" who speak out on behalf of Planned Parenthood. Being a woman who was unable to have her own children this really touched a nerve. I know this is only one example, but something I found interesting because she was so anti-Republican 3 years ago and has now vowed never to vote Democratic again.

 

[Wild Bill]

Well, there's two significant immigrant groups (East Asians and Jews) who don't fit with your theory. I'm trying to think of a significant immigrant group that might... maybe Indians? Regardless, given the two counter-examples you just brought up, I doubt the GOP can afford to gamble its future on immigrant groups becoming wealthy and suddenly taking to Friedman and von Mises.

Point being, I don't think the evidence supports Bill's theory that as immigrant groups become wealthier, they will naturally trend toward the GOP. The Jewish and Asian examples both contradict it.

I doubt the GOP would find much success predicting the future voting habits of the current wave of Hispanic immigrants by comparing them to the Asians and Jews who have migrated here in the past.

The original question was:

How exactly do Republicans go about winning over Hispanics then?

The approach I would take is to understand why they're coming here in droves. In my estimation, the overwhelming majority of them are coming here to escape poverty. And in my experience, nothing terrifies poverty escapees more than the thought of living in poverty again. So it's my opinion that economic opportunity and the ability to build wealth (not necessarily being wealthy) is the best way for the GOP to gain support from Hispanic voters.

The GOP will never gain the support of the immigrants who came here for entitlements. But a large number of them came here to work. That should be the focus of the GOP. The GOP's message to these immigrants should focus on how their economic policies will help them build their life here in America. Easier said than done, of course.

 

[phgreek]

I am surprised none of you are granting the same latitude to DWS. She likewise only had 3 minutes to answer three broad questions. Obviously, as the DNC chairperson she has a duty to the party and presented a narrative that was EASILY defendable. You guys can't really be shocked that she reiterated the problems with the Republican demographic given the failed opportunity for the Republicans to present their new found diversity with a woman, Indian, AA, a closeted homosexual, a Hispanic and their own foreign born candidate on stage? Right?

I honestly hope The R chair gets the same opportunity so that the issue can be crystallized simply by his response.

I can't speak for what motivates the Republican party. I saw no failed opportunity as a generally conservative guy. I saw people gathered by some pre-determined performance metric...they did what they did with the opportunity they were given. Seems the party let the debate take its course w/o forcing anything (read pandering). The takeaway of the "demographics scorecard" to me was come one come all, earn your way, and stand on your skill. If that concept is offensive to the masses...or failing to pander by design
with whatever diversity rises is somehow strategically a mistake...what can really be said positive about such an attitude?

 

[Bluto]

How do Republicans win over Hispanics? Basically stop being such complete assholes. Lol.