New issues are not necessarily issues of the future

Trump has raised a lot of new issues in this campaign, including political correctness, trade, and most importantly, immigration.  So will these issues become increasingly important in the future, even if Trump loses?  Don’t count on it.

1.  Trump is doing absolutely horribly among the younger voters, including generation X and Y. Every day, lots of older Trump voters die off, and lots of teenagers who went to diverse high schools and are comfortable with people from many different cultures turn 18, eligible to vote.

2.  Trump does well among blue color whites.  Every day, lots of those voters retire, and some die off.  Younger white people in places like Iowa who used to work in meat packing plants now get service sector jobs.  The plants hire Mexicans instead.  The remaining factory jobs that do hire whites often employ skilled technicians.  Again, the Trump “base” is shrinking rapidly.

3.  The white, non-Hispanic share of the population will continue to shrink.  There is some evidence that the GOP might be able to make gains with groups like Chinese-Americans, but even there the appeal is limited to certain issues like political correctness (which the Chinese see through the lens of China’s Cultural Revolution) and affirmative action in college admissions. Issues like trade and anxiety about legal immigration will not attract Chinese immigrants.

Many stereotypes have a grain of truth, but also cover up a lot of important nuance.  This article says the Trump issue is all about the cities versus the countryside.  OK, but it’s also worth noting that:

1.   American farmers are doing well.

2.  American farmers benefits more from trade than almost any other group.

3.  American farmers benefit from cheap illegals helping to harvest their crops.

Trumponomics would be horrible for America’s farmers.  Yes, I know that most rural people are not farmers, and that many farmers support Trump.  It’s just that these stereotypes cover up a lot of complexity.  Trump will lose Michigan badly and win the south central states.  Of course the auto industry has fled Michigan, and expanded rapidly in the  . . .  yes, south central states.  So it’s all about economics?  You might say, “Yes, he’ll lose Michigan badly but win in depressed Detroit”. Except he won’t, he’ll get slaughtered in Detroit, and Cleveland, and Pittsburgh, and St Louis, and Buffalo, and Baltimore. . . .

And yet in those cities Trump will get lots of votes from white cops and fireman (service jobs!) who get nice salaries and need not fear foreign competition.  Cops who enjoy patrolling immigrant Asian neighborhoods because there is so little crime.  This is a really complicated country—all generalizations are false, (except this one).

In a two-party system, each party wins the presidency about 1/2 of the time each century.  There is a natural equilibrating mechanism, as one party fulfills its various promises, the “issues” seem to become more and more favorable to the “out” party.  In addition, the out party usually begins to adjust its policy views to become more “marketable.”  That’s why I expect the GOP Congress to cave in to Clinton on both the minimum wage and amnesty.  The GOP wants those issues off the table in 2020—they want to run against Clinton’s stagnating economy, high taxes and over-regulation, without being seen as racist and anti-low wage worker.

Pundits that think we can never go back to the old Mitt Romney “country club” Republican Party may be in for an unpleasant surprise.  Or perhaps I should say “pleasant surprise” if the Alt-Right is the alternative.


Tags:

 
 
 

34 Responses to “New issues are not necessarily issues of the future”

  1. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    17. October 2016 at 20:35

    IMO, increasingly it’ll be the case that whichever party gets stuck w/ AltAmerica (and it’s precursors or successors) has a rotting stinking albatross wrapped tightly around its neck. Used to be the Dems (pre 1964) and now it’s the GOP. AltAmerica will continue to be a rotting corpse for sometime, perhaps passed back and forth between the parties, but hopefully it’s on its way out for good (like you imply)… but who knows what horrors will replace it in the future? =)

    My ideal political landscape will probably never materialize. Where “campaign rallies” and debates sound like engineering preliminary design reviews for a new embedded processor architecture. Or something like this woman. I could vote for her. Emotionless, dry, methodical, blunt, experienced, knows her shit… I love it! I search out that kind of thing for entertainment because what she has to say is actually interesting. Trump is such a colossal bore in comparison. “I’m the best at everything! Everything I do is the greatest! Everyone who criticizes me is corrupt, stupid and ugly and should be in prison! Wo is me! I’m being victimized by reality! Blah blah blah.” As Bill Maher points out, he’s the nightmare product of the “self esteem movement” gone terribly terribly wrong. He’s like watching a bad Wrestlemania star do his 3rd rate shtick. The worst part is the crowd who thinks it’s real, awesome, and entertaining..

    In other news, I’m ashamed to say that I just heard in the national news tonight that my city’s newspaper (The Santa Barbara News Press) was the 1st in the nation to endorse Trump, and still just 1 of 2 newspapers in the country to do so. They gave no reason at all.

  2. Gravatar of msgkings msgkings
    17. October 2016 at 21:20

    From your mouth to God’s ears man. Here’s hoping.

  3. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    17. October 2016 at 21:44

    “Trump will lose Michigan badly and win the south central states.”

    -Well, well, well, I just did a post on this.

    https://goo.gl/d9nFBq

    I can guarantee you with 100% certainty Trump will overperform in Michigan relative to native son Romney and will win Macomb County by a lot, which Romney didn’t do at all (though Bush did in 2004).

    “Except he won’t, he’ll get slaughtered in Detroit”

    -As any Republican would have. He won whatever Republicans there are in Detroit, BTW, by the same margin as in the rest of Michigan in the primaries.

    “and lots of teenagers who went to diverse high schools and are comfortable with people from many different cultures turn 18, eligible to vote.”

    -Hm, that sounds a lot like me.

    Trump Democrats are the Republicans of 1916.

    Good points about the farmers. Trump will probably win Iowa, but Iowa benefits a lot from NAFTA.

    “Trump is doing absolutely horribly among the younger voters, including generation X and Y.”

    -So is Clinton. Kasich did worse among young people in the primaries, though he won Washtenaw County (never confuse college town preferences with young people’s preferences).
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/09/us/elections/new-hampshire-republican-poll.html

    “That’s why I expect the GOP Congress to cave in to Clinton on both the minimum wage and amnesty.”

    -Amnesty? Absolutely not. David Brats will spout all over the country (thanks, David!). And guess what? Amnesty will actually hurt the GOP with Hispanics, just like it did in 1988.

    Minimum wage? Maybe. Who knows? For now on, I’m calling this one “unlikely”.

    “Pundits that think we can never go back to the old Mitt Romney “country club” Republican Party may be in for an unpleasant surprise.”

    -Fact is, lots of those who voted for John McCain in Virginia in 2000 and Liddle Marco and John Kasich this year are quitting the GOP. And a lot of 1916 Republicans are re-joining it. That’s a good thing.

  4. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    17. October 2016 at 21:53

    Fun fact: Donald J. Trump would have easily won the primary if only women were allowed to vote, with only the VA and VT (possibly also AR) results being different. Removing the old would have helped Trump in New Hampshire, but have hurt him significantly in Iowa, Virginia, Florida, and South Carolina.

  5. Gravatar of Ray Lopez Ray Lopez
    17. October 2016 at 23:38

    Sumner is misleading about American farmers. I read a study from a think tank or scholar like Bovard (Cato?) that said without price supports, most American farmers, though they are indeed wealthy as Sumner says, would fail. This is actually a big deal preventing further reform.

    PS-Sumner has a history of talking past his audience. Just the other day we got into a big brouhaha over nothing, as he was talking about moving along the IS-LM or AD-AS curves (money illusion and sticky prices, the basis behind money non-neutrality, depend on moving along these curves, not the shifting of these curves, I’m pretty sure that’s true) and I was talking about shifting lines on these curves. Typical of this blog, lots of noise, little light. That’s why I love it here.

  6. Gravatar of Daniel Daniel
    18. October 2016 at 01:10

    The white, non-Hispanic share of the population will continue to shrink.

    This is precisely the thing some people are rebelling against.

    And seeing how civilization is mostly a white man’s invention, you’d have to be an idiot (or a liberal, but I repeat myself) not to fear for the future.

    The future won’t happen overnight, but is looking mighty bleak.

    But hey, cheap fruit !

  7. Gravatar of Jeremy Goodridge Jeremy Goodridge
    18. October 2016 at 04:29

    Sanders did great with young people and sanders is anti international trade (specifically free trade between the US and significantly poorer countries). So I think trade and protectionism will still be big issues.

  8. Gravatar of Student Student
    18. October 2016 at 04:34

    Daniel,

    You do realize that cities, agriculture, the alphabet, mathematics, etc were not inventions of the “white man” right? Civilization is certainly not a white mans invention.

    Also, the only people rebelling against the declining share of the white population are racists fearful of everything. Same garbage said about Germans, Irish, Poles, Italians throughout American history (back when racists were scared of the declining Anglo-Protestant share of the population).

    Quit being so afraid of everything.

  9. Gravatar of Student Student
    18. October 2016 at 04:37

    You want to have a rabid youth movement like sanders… advocate the legalization of marijuana. That’s how Sanders drew them in. I am actually rather surprised this wasn’t noticed by Clinton or Trump. The most politically active rabid young people are those pot heads that spend countless hours talking about how stupid marijuana prohibition is.

  10. Gravatar of Jeff Jeff
    18. October 2016 at 05:00

    @Student,

    You don’t have to be a young pothead to support marijuana legalization. I’m 58 and haven’t toked up since 1977, but I still think marijuana prohibition is really stupid.

    @Scott,

    I hope you’re right about the Republicans dropping the anti-immigrant stuff, but I fear it may not matter. I think a lot of Hispanics and Asians take this stuff personally and have long memories. Pete Wilson started this iteration of stupidity back in 1994, and California has been in the Democrats column ever since, even when Bush the Younger was running in 2000. It may be that the Republicans have destroyed their chances of ever winning national elections again.

  11. Gravatar of Student Student
    18. October 2016 at 05:08

    Jeff,

    I was exaggerating to make the point that young people were excited about sanders in large part because he was the only presidential candidate in history to advocate such a thing. Marijuana prohibiton is stupid.

  12. Gravatar of Tom M Tom M
    18. October 2016 at 05:12

    I think we should legalize marijuana in this country… So potheads have nothing to talk about ever again

  13. Gravatar of Daniel Daniel
    18. October 2016 at 06:17

    Civilization is certainly not a white mans invention.

    Right, let me know when Africans send a man to the Moon.

    The days when yelling “racists” automatically brought victory are over, little boys.

  14. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    18. October 2016 at 06:27

    @Student

    …that spend countless hours talking about how stupid marijuana prohibition is.

    For a second I thought you were talking about ssumner. =)

  15. Gravatar of Scott Sumner is Bullish on the GOP's 2020 Chances | Scott Sumner is Bullish on the GOP's 2020 Chances |
    18. October 2016 at 06:28

    […] New issues are not necessarily issues of the future […]

  16. Gravatar of Student Student
    18. October 2016 at 06:38

    daniel, Strange definition of civilization you have there.

    But either way, let me know when an isolationist, immigrant fearing, trade fearing, anti-science society gets there as well. Wonder if we would have gotten there at if we were as afraid of refugees of war in the 1930s and 1940s as you seem to be today.

  17. Gravatar of Student Student
    18. October 2016 at 06:43

    Christian,

    Maybe I was thinking of myself 10-15 years ago…

  18. Gravatar of Daniel Daniel
    18. October 2016 at 07:22

    So yelling “racism” it is 🙂

    Funny how the people who claim to be pro-science suddenly turn to creationism when it comes to human biology.

  19. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    18. October 2016 at 07:36

    Harding, You said:

    “Trump will probably win Iowa”

    Not according to the betting markets.

    Daniel, We already have your dystopia in Texas, where white non-Hispanics are down to 43%. And guess what? White people are moving to Texas in droves, because they like it better than white states like Ohio or Oklahoma. Just because you don’t like non-whites, don’t assume that other white people feel the same way. I actually married a non-white. Trust me, they aren’t as scary as you assume.

    And God help the people in Singapore–very few white people, and a measly per capita GDP (PPP) of $85,000.

    Jeff, I’m old enough to recall many such false predictions. Our system is self-equilibrating, and each party wins about 50% of the elections each century. You can count on it.

  20. Gravatar of Student Student
    18. October 2016 at 07:44

    What the??? You are flailing around like a fish out of water now…

    I don’t know why but I will once again take the troll bait. You do realize it is possible to be a christian while fully accepting the other source of truth in the universe (which is science). One doesn’t have to hold (and in fact IMO shouldn’t hold) the crude simpleton view of creationism. You know it is possible to accept the physical and biological explanations for how things became what they are while still accepting these say nothing about their underlying cause.

    Aquinas made this case quite well hundreds of years ago. For example, Aquinas’ argument from first cause started with the premise that it is impossible for a being to cause itself (because it would have to exist before it caused itself) and that it is impossible for there to be an infinite chain of causes, which would result in infinite regress. Therefore, there must be a first cause, itself uncaused.

    The Big Bang (or any other plausible alternative) which nowadays are posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creating, but rather requires it. The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of Creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.

    Come on man…

  21. Gravatar of Adam Adam
    18. October 2016 at 09:47

    Yeah, it’s not agriculture, it’s homogeneity and fear of others that aren’t like you. I’d think suburbs and exurbs over actual rural America.

  22. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    18. October 2016 at 10:12

    “White people are moving to Texas in droves, because they like it better than white states like Ohio or Oklahoma.”

    -Mexicans are moving to Texas in droves, certainly. In a quarter century, they will control the politics of the state, and White people will start moving out.

    According to the 2010 census, the fastest growth (percentage-wise) in the non-Hispanic White population from the prior census was in the District of Columbia, the Carolinas, Nevada, Arizona, Hawaii, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming. Two swing states (one formerly solid red), one blue state, one Federal government teat, and five red states. The fastest decline (percentage-wise) in the non-Hispanic White population from the prior census was in Rhode Island, Connecticut, California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Maryland. Hm, I wonder what all these states have in common?

    Between 2000 and 2010, the non-Hispanic White population of California decreased by 860 thousand. The non-Hispanic White population of Texas, with a much higher White fertility rate, increased by 464 thousand. The failure of California is more self-evident than the success of Texas.

    BTW, fun fact: if California and New Jersey were as White as Iowa, they would be slightly redder than Iowa.

    “Not according to the betting markets.”

    -I think you know my view of them well.

    “Our system is self-equilibrating, and each party wins about 50% of the elections each century. You can count on it.”

    -Then how the heck did the Democrats win all but two terms during the Second Party System and all but one term during the first (excluding the two terms of George Washington, who ran unopposed), while the Republicans won all but two terms during the Fourth Party System and all but two terms during the Third Party system? Do you actually know your political history, Sumner? Yes, on rare occasions (e.g., the Detroit mayoral election of 2013), non-Whites collectively recognize the errors of their previous ways. But, quite often, 40 years of damage gets done before that happens.

  23. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    18. October 2016 at 10:17

    “Our system is self-equilibrating, and each party wins about 50% of the elections each century.”

    -19th century: eight years Whig, 60 years Democrat, 32 years Republican.

    Hypothesis rejected.

    -20th century: 48 years Democrat, 52 years Republican.

    Hypothesis not rejected.

  24. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    18. October 2016 at 10:30

    I forgot to include John Q. Adams up there, so the numbers above should arguably be revised to 56 years Democrat for the 19th century and all but two terms during the first party system.

  25. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    18. October 2016 at 10:32

    Harding, Whigs = GOP. So 60/40 disproves my theory? You really need a course in statistics.

    You’d never flip a coin 25 times and get 10 heads and 15 tails?

    Regarding Texas, percentages don’t move, people move. And whites are choosing Texas, tied for the second least white state in the country.

  26. Gravatar of bill bill
    18. October 2016 at 11:08

    I hope you’re right about amnesty and wrong about the minimum wage.

  27. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    18. October 2016 at 12:36

    I think Sanders was mostly about entitlements and getting free stuff without having to work for it: Free health care and free colleges for example. With Marijuana it’s similar. They want to be able to get it everywhere but they downplay and/or completely deny the costs of these actions.

    ssumner wrote about millenials moving away from stuff recently. I don’t think that’s entirely true. I think they just moved away from wanting stuff to wanting stuff for free.


    Texas, where white non-Hispanics are down to 43%

    Nevertheless Trump is most likely winning Texas. How weird is that?


    the Trump issue is all about the cities versus the countryside. OK, but it’s also worth noting that: American farmers are doing well.

    What kind of a weird cliché is that? Do you honestly think the countryside is all about farmers? I live at the countryside and maybe 5% of the people here are working on farms. I also think that in total Trump gets more votes from the rich suburbs and exurbs than from actual rural Americans.

  28. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    18. October 2016 at 12:41

    “Trump seems to want no limits placed on the president’s power.”

    -This is obviously untrue:

    https://fop.net/CmsDocument/Doc/2016PresidentialQuestionnaire.pdf

  29. Gravatar of Jeff Jeff
    18. October 2016 at 12:42

    I’m old enough to recall many such false predictions. Our system is self-equilibrating, and each party wins about 50% of the elections each century. You can count on it.

    Except that it hasn’t worked that way in California, nor have Republicans anywhere managed to get many black votes since Nixon. A party can change its policy positions to win back voters who disagree with it, but it’s not so easy to win back voters who you’ve referred to as rapists and murderers, voters you’ve said should never have been let in here. I don’t see how Republicans can win national elections if they are guaranteed to lose the black, Asian and Hispanic vote by huge margins, especially since Trump is also doing his best to make the GOP anathema to women as well.

  30. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    18. October 2016 at 12:57

    BTW, Sumner, between 2000 and 2010, the non-Hispanic White population of North Carolina rose by 577 thousand. I think that’s the largest increase in the whole country. Texas’s non-Hispanic White population only rose by 464 thousand. In Arizona, the increase was 421 thousand.

    Of course, North Carolina isn’t all that White, either. If it was as White as Tennessee, it would be as Red as Tennessee.

  31. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    18. October 2016 at 13:04

    “Except that it hasn’t worked that way in California”

    -California is part of the entire country. On the gubernatorial level, Arnold Schwarzenegger was governor less than a decade ago.

    “it’s not so easy to win back voters who you’ve referred to as rapists and murderers, voters you’ve said should never have been let in here”

    -True; it really is tough for a party tough on rapists and murderers to win rapists and murderers. That’s why the Democrats want the rapists and murderers enfranchised again.

    “I don’t see how Republicans can win national elections if they are guaranteed to lose the black, Asian and Hispanic vote by huge margins, especially since Trump is also doing his best to make the GOP anathema to women as well.”

    -The gender gap goes in both directions, hard as it may be for you to admit. I don’t think Rudy won the Black, Asian, or Hispanic vote by any margin in 2001. He still won.

    Trump is, with his time-honored Northern Strategy, bringing America closer to a truly unified White vote (except for the overeducated)-something that was last seen in 1984.

  32. Gravatar of Jeff Jeff
    18. October 2016 at 13:27

    You know, I was going to say about Harding that the mask has slipped. But it would be more appropriate to say the sheet’s gone on.

  33. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    18. October 2016 at 18:07

    Christian, What’s weird is that Texas is close for the first time in decades.

    You said:

    “Do you honestly think the countryside is all about farmers?”

    Do you not know how to read?

  34. Gravatar of Joe Eagar Joe Eagar
    19. October 2016 at 16:23

    Tom Brown, your post brings two words to mind. One is “ethnic,” and the other starts with “cl”. Try guessing what the second word is.

Leave a Reply