The South Dakota Democratic Party may face organizational challenges, but the Republican Party nationwide faces demographics and death:
The Republican Party—relying on a core base of support from older, whiter, more male, more geographically dispersed, and more religious voters—benefits from a constitutional system with multiple levels of elections and shared power. Although the party’s coalition may be less diverse than Democrats’, Republican voters are typically more active and more reliable in terms of voting in midterm and subnational elections that determine the balance of power in government. The main challenges for Republicans in 2016 are twofold: first, an overreliance on white votes at the expense of building a broader demographic coalition in battleground states and, second, an agenda and political tone that is too conservative and exclusionary for a national electorate.
Recent social trends present significant headwinds for Republicans, particularly as they relate to demographic shifts in the country. For years, Republicans could rely on white voters—and, in particular, working-class whites—to constitute a decisive proportion of the electorate and deliver victory. This is no longer the case. As documented in the 2014 “States of Change” report—published jointly by the Center for American Progress, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Brookings Institution—the percentage of white voters in the actual electorate dropped 15 percentage points, from 89 percent in 1976 to 74 percent in 2012. The percentage of white working-class voters dropped even more, decreasing by 26 points over the same period. Future projections in the “States of Change” report suggest that the percentage of eligible white voters in the American electorate will drop to 46 percent by 2060. (see Figure 1) Compounding the problem nationally for Republicans, the decline in the white percentage of the electorate has coincided with stronger Democratic identification and voting patterns among nonwhite voters, as well as increasingly more liberal social views among higher-educated white professionals [Ruy Teixeira, John Halpin, Rob Griffin, “The Path to 270 in 2016,” Center for American Progress, 2015.12.17].
Salon notes that the current GOP Presidential frontrunners are missing that point:
By appealing to the fears of culturally isolated white people, the Republican Party has created an intractable demand-side problem: Gradually, their platform has become dominated by social and religious issues which alienate nearly everyone outside of their base. Given the shifting demographics in this country, this portends doom for the GOP [Sean Illing, “R.I.P. GOP: Party of Old, Disillusioned White People Is Dying a Slow Death,” Salon, 2015.12.17].
The above authors are writing about the national electorate, not South Dakota’s lingering Whitopia. The South Dakota Democratic Party can’t sit back and let demographics do their work for them.
But we’ll catch up. We were 88.7% white in 2004; ten years later, the white percentage was down to 85.7%. The Ward Cleavers and Donald Trumps and Friends and Flunkies of Janklow will age out, and more South Dakotans will wonder why those Republicans were so afraid of change, progress, and pluralism.
Good eye, Cory.
Cory . could it be all the cheap labor that was brought in from the fifties has populated to become a voting block that the republicans can’t stop.I would like to hear what Porter, Lanny have to say on this ? Merry Christmas.
Cheap labor from the 1950s, moses? Where’d they come from? Are they still here? How are they and their kids and grandkids voting?
The South Dakota Republican Party has such an overwhelming majority and they’ve had it for so long they must have a very long list of accomplishments, huh?
So many Republicans check this blog (many times a day) could you give us liberals some of the things you’ve done to make South Dakota better and more attractive to new folks moving in?
~ Liberals believe that shared power increases production and efficiency but the red majority must have accomplished so much over the years since Obama was elected, show us we’re wrong.
The Republicans are going to go ballistic in the next decade when they lose Texas in the electoral college. They lost California twenty years ago. Florida and Ohio (Virginia too) are trending Democratic with the only hope for the GOP being Minnesota and or Wisconsin, which have yet to truly materialize nor do their electoral votes match the GOP losses in that college.
Ironically, the GOP will be forced to run minority candidates for president in the future. That is if they want to win in the future to protect the wealth interests of this country, which are primarily white. Trump’s rhetoric and the presence of Carson, Rubio, and Cruz are indicative of what is beginning to happen and what needs to happen for the GOP to be relevant in the decades to come when it comes to presidential politics.
I find it more than ironic that the Democrats, the party of diversity and pluralism, had/has as it’s candidates for President primarily old, white people. Most eligible for Social Security and Medicare no less.
Excellent, Winston.
You go, Coyote. You’re making progress.
And Don, you know something the rest of us do not know about the Democrats VP choice in 2016?…. Tell us….
Let me also just say that I think the recent bromance between Trump and Cruz is further indication of my thesis on the future of the Republican party.
But the real difference between the Democrats and the Republicans since WWII is that one party was the first and only one to place a civil rights plank on its platform, only one party desegregated the military, gave us successful civil rights legislation, has been the true protector of affirmative action and women’s’ rights, nominated the first women as a part of a national ticket, elected the first african-american president, and now has the first very politically credible (from a winning standpoint) female candidate for president…. and what do the Republicans have to show for all of this? Well, they got Sarah, but even FOX eventually saw through that one….
I might also add, that most of the aforementioned Democratic accomplishments have been done with white leadership. The American people just trust the Democratic party more than the Republican party when it comes to enfranchisement, which is the true “kineticism” (Have I created a Palin word?) of liberty.
To put it simple, Democrats don’t see Clinton, Sanders, and O’Malley as white they see them as friends of liberty for all regardless of the voters race.
1972..Democrats in South Dakota held the Governorship (Kniep), Congressional first district (Denholm), and both US Senates Seats (Abourezk and McGovern) PLUS..the Democratic Presidential Nominee.
(before Abourezk was elected tot he US Senate Democrats help BOTH Congressional districts).
A few years later Rocky and Star Wars came out..well..Rocky and Star Wars are back..
Jim, I think Hillary hears you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9DmJ_5BEHI
Excellent points, Winston. But can the Democratic party in SD get some organization?
@Winston: “But the real difference between the Democrats and the Republicans since WWII is that one party was the first and only one to place a civil rights plank on its platform, only one party desegregated the military, gave us successful civil rights legislation, has been the true protector of affirmative action and women’s’ rights, nominated the first women as a part of a national ticket, elected the first african-american president, and now has the first very politically credible (from a winning standpoint) female candidate for president…. and what do the Republicans have to show for all of this?”
You forget that without Senator Everrett Dirkson (R) IL leading the Republicans in the Senate to vote for cloture on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Harry (KKK) Byrd (D) WV might be still filibustering (I know, he’s dead) And let’s not forget that consummate racist President Woodrow Wilson (D) who re-segregated the Federal government. Or the 40 year legislative battle in Congress by the Democrats in their war against women’s suffrage. Republicans led the charge in Congress voting for suffrage in the House of Representatives with Dems voting only 104 to 70 in favor but Republicans voting 200 to 19. And in the Senate, Democrats were barely in favor by 20 to 17 but the Republicans voted 36 to 8. And it wasn’t only in Congress but also in the states, with 27 of the 36 ratifying states being Republican and a Republican legislator, Harry Burn, breaking a tie vote making a Democrat Tennessee the final state needed for ratification of the 19th Amendment.
Don – perhaps you should take some advice from a poet who comes from a family of poets.
“What Have you Done for me Lately?” ~Janet Jackson
Point being that although I’m sure you can use Google to find some examples of Republicans pushing for Civil Rights while Democrats fought against them, you cannot make a rational argument that those are trends with the parties of today nor have they been in 40 years.
It is quite clear the GOP of today is very much the party of predominantly old, predominantly white, predominantly religious, and predominately upper income voters. The Democratic party of today is much more inviting, welcoming, and supportive of younger voters, minority voters, female voters, and pretty much every non-old, white, religious, upper income type of voter.
Keep in mind what the term “liberal” actually means. The GOP continues to this day to use the term liberal as an insult, but the fact remains that modern liberalism is very much concerned with equal rights for minorities. As our population continues to become more diverse in both color, race, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation this spells disaster for the Republican party which has built itself around a very closed-minded core.
I read a few years ago an article which suggested barring some significant world events such as a major war or economic collapse that the Republican Party wasn’t likely to win the Presidency for at least 20 years based upon statistical analysis and demographic shifts. Based upon momentum, that appears to be a more likely scenario each passing day. When the front runner of a national campaign actually gains momentum in his party by making racist and xenophobic remarks it seems obvious that the pendulum is still moving in the opposite direction from what most of us would consider rational middle ground… and you don’t often win elections by pandering to the far lunatic fringe of a political party.
Excellent, Craig.
jfc coyote, on “August 18, 1920, Tennessee narrowly ratified the Nineteenth Amendment, making it the law throughout the United States.[214 wiki] Thus the 1920 election became the first United States presidential election in which women were permitted to vote in every state.” did u forget to mention your argument denigrating dems is about a hundred years old? this took 5 minutes. wuff
Tsitrian: thx for reminding us…you said: “My wish this Christmas is for Thune, Noem and Rounds to demand an answer to the question “why?” before they vote [for WAR.]”
Craig@” and you don’t often win elections by pandering to the far lunatic fringe of a political party.”. Well proven in SD.
I just don’t see MN going GOP in the presidential election. I know it’s known as a swing state these days but they have yet to turn red, last time being ’72. Too much of a growing minority population and the top prizes of Hennepin and Ramsey counties are still heavily progressive. St Paul wants to ban the Trumpster to their city, that tells ya how much they like the GOP these days!
1st CD – Southern MN is growing bluer by the day as well with the growing minority population.