[toomuchtodo]

I haven’t dived into the exit poll data yet (by county, race, income, and age), but it really depends on which states those voters reside in. If they’re in states almost blue (Texas and Georgia, for example), it’s moot.

Florida is likely a lost cause (between conservative minorities and the elderly), but you don’t need Florida to win national elections (clearly). If the electoral college is done away with, it’s also moot, as there is enough popular vote margin at the national level to always go blue.

[laverya]

I don't understand your meaning. Texas and Georgia are almost blue at least partly because minority voters overwhelmingly vote blue, and the proportion of minorities has been increasing over time. Changing that vote share to 60-40 instead of 80-20 would do quite a lot to solidify republicans in those states.

And with Trump showing that it's possible to increase the Republican vote share among minorities... I'd expect political strategists to focus more effort there in the future. A self-fulfilling prophecy, in a way.

[toomuchtodo]

Across the board, the GOP would need to convert minorities to consistent GOP voters faster than the electorate conversion (where the electorate tilts progressive) occurs naturally due to older voters dying and newer voters turning 18 or naturalizing, and this conversion needs to happen even faster in states that are turning blue (to overcome sociopolitical demographic momentum). I will add that just because Trump was able to pull more minority votes doesn't mean the GOP will be able to do the same; different messaging. Someone supporting Trump is unlikely to vote for Mitt Romney (who is, imho, a reasonable conservative), for example. Also, historically, the GOP typically doesn't put forth public policy that is friendly to most minorities and immigrants.

Sorry my thesis wasn't clear, although I appreciate the opportunity to refine the message. Better to get the kinks out here before speaking to an audience IRL.

[laverya]

In general, a two-party system will evolve such that both parties control ~50% of the relevant votes averaged over multiple elections. Individuals might stick to their principles and refuse to compromise, but parties are not so limited.

Losing a solid voter base might mean that the Republicans need to change their platform to appeal to more voters, but it doesn't mean that they're forever doomed and will never win another election. Maybe that means compromising on abortion. Maybe it means immigration reform - but from the Republican perspective, and not giving amnesty to illegal immigrants. (And funnily enough, IIRC amnesty isn't particularly popular among LEGAL immigrants) Maybe it means pulling their heads out of their asses re: climate change, and running on a revenue-neutral carbon tax.

All of this means changes, but not an end to the party.

[toomuchtodo]

I don't disagree with you. I think the question is, how much will the Republican party be willing to compromise on (immigration [1], abortion [2], social safety nets [3] [4] [5], drug reform, income and wealth inequality, discrimination) before they're no longer Republicans in order to gain enough votes to remain relevant.

As you said, neither party is going away, but they will both have to change to accommodate an evolving electorate. As someone said upthread, both parties need to stop taking their voters for granted and go out and listen to them.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/06/28/shifting-pub...

[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/08/29/u-s-public-c...

[3] https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/03/21/retirement-social...

[4] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/29/increasing-...

[5] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/03/most-contin...