Why do people think WA/OR will trend Republican?

[RINO Tom]

It's annoying, but tbf the only people who think that are Atlas posters fantasizing about implausible "realignment" theories.

That you always seem to support.

I mostly agree with your theories and maps, but I'm not buying this strange idea that WA and OR will be voting to the right of OH, IA and PA in 20 years. I expect to see something like this:

Being generous to the GOP in TX and IL, though. Democrats will have the advantage in the EC but they'll be in big trouble in the Senate.

The only reason OR isn't Safe D is because I believe a Fairfax County-type Democratic Party (like that, RINO Tom? ) isn't the best fit for a state like Oregon, but it wouldn't be enough for the GOP to actually win the state (they'd constantly lose it by 5-7 points or so).

This would be a pretty decent map for a "Fairfax County-type Democratic Party" (I'm going to assume that I know what this implies, though I think the term is pretty meaningless, in reality); however, the Democratic Party has never been that type of party and literally can't ever be without losing its bulk of support.

[RINO Tom]

Basically they eventually see the end of the Southern Strategy after Trump.

The Southern strategy has been refuted by many scholars. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html
http://www.claremont.org/crb/article/the-myth-of-the-racist-republicans/

Personally, I've much preferred the theories stated by the Claremont link for some time now, but at the same time, I don't think it changes some of the rhetoric or policies pushed by the GOP. It doesn't have to be some sort of cohesive strategy all Republicans agree to implement with a wink and a nod. It also doesn't have to mean that this dog whistling is even necessary for Republicans to make the same gains, but they do it anyway because they think it's necessary.

Also, I have to admit, for some people who stress the points made in the Claremont link, I think it's kind of ironic when it comes to this part:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Part of the theory is that young Southerners were trending to the GOP and basically stayed that way as they aged, thus turning the South more Republican. Yet, when myself and others on here state the same processes at work with Millennials and other young(er) voters, it's dismissed as silly "demographics is destiny" and "people won't always vote the same way" or "people get more conservative as they age" stuff. Not to say you ever said that, but I know some others here that have.

The bolded text is what bothers people, I think.  If you're going to be a part of the "Demographics will catch up with the GOP" crowd, you damn sure better not be a part of the "all the Dixiecrats became Republicans in 1964" crowd.  Consistency is respected, especially when only one of the scenarios makes your "side" look good.

(Obviously not talking about you, just many less smart red avatars )