Why do people think WA/OR will trend Republican?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Easy when the GOP switches to a Suburban strategy they will be competitive in the PNW . Winning Beaverton,Hillsboro is much more important to winning the state then Portland

[OSR stands with Israel]

Easy when the GOP switches to a Suburban strategy they will be competitive in the PNW . Winning Beaverton,Hillsboro is much more important to winning the state then Portland

The only way the republicans win Oregon is to increase numbers in Salem and bend and flip Clackamas county, republicans are not going to flip Washington county it's gone the way of fair fax county or Dallas county or Delaware county Pennsylvania.

There's another way to win Oregon ,win nationally by 9-11 points .

[OSR stands with Israel]

The only times since 1986 the GOP really had a chance to win the Oregon Governor elections were 1994 ,2002,2010 ( which were open elections) and 2014.

2014 was lost cause of the local media hiding Kitzhaber scandal until after he won and Richardson being way to far right socially

2010 was blown cause of the GOP nominating former NBA player Dudley who was a joke and you can argue the third party candidates also cost the GOP that year

In 2002 the GOP nominated an tough on crime candidate  , a type of candidate which doesnt really appeal to Oregon

1994 I dont know why gop did so bad

[OSR stands with Israel]

This is something I've wondered myself.  I've often seen these states in the R column with future trend maps or realignment maps, and I'm not sure I buy that.

Even in the case of a realignment, I'm not sure I'm buying it, and that's even if the realignment is couched in generational theory as Timmy describes (which I do give him credit for the effort and time he's taken to write about this theory).  But even if we're presuming all this, I do think it's quite a bit too early to make any predictions in terms of what future coalitions will look like.  I do think that a future realignment is bound to happen at some point- after all, the current party system won't exist in perpetuity.  Notwithstanding that, I think what future coalitions emerge are much more in flux than people seem to think.

For example, yes- we could end up with something resembling an Eisenhower-era GOP with lots of Rockefeller Republicans (though even in this case, I'd expect WA/OR to be some of the last states to flip R, if they ever do.. they may just trend R and become swing states).  But what if we end up with both parties moving in a populist direction (somewhat of the inverse of the Gilded Age) and we have extreme party polarization based almost wholly on racial stratification, in a South African type system?

Now I suspect many would say that couldn't happen, mainly because you wouldn't want it to happen and a system like that probably sounds like quite an ugly one to many of you.  But whether we like it or not, I find it to be a distinct possibility.  I guess I am somewhat echoing Skill&Chance then, in that we could see national white block voting in the future, but where we differ, is I think that even if that happens, WA/OR may still vote D since it would have some of the least likely whites to vote R, even in an era of racial polarization.

One other point, I think NOVA Green mentioned this- in terms of the local weakness of the GOP.  This is something I've thought about as well; it seems local politicians have a much harder time making in roads in this region than a place, like say, New England.  In other words, Charlie Baker could win MA, but I'm not sure even he could win WA or OR.  Now obviously, there are many other variables at play here- Baker ran against a poor candidate and maybe all the pacific NW GOP candidates are joke candidates (I must admit some ignorance here, the pacific NW is one of my least knowledgeable areas), but it seems to me that some of these races should've been winnable (take, e.g., the 2010 OR gubernatorial).  For whatever reason, Baker could overcome the "taint" of the national party, so to speak, and WA/OR Republicans cannot.  That may be worth considering.

Finally, Skill&Chance- absolutely superb post at the top of this page, in re: culture wars, etc.  Very much agree and well done.

The reason the Oregon GOP cant win state wide races, is most of the times their primary process is controlled by the Eastern part of the state which is basically as conservative as Wyoming.

[OSR stands with Israel]

this is exactly why I think Oregon will become a swing state in the future(prob not statewide but at a national level yes), as the GOP will become less religious meaning they will do much better in Oregon then they are doing now as the Religious right is a huge reason why Oregon is so dem. Washington on the other hand wont become a swing state(it will become lean Dem though) .


Statewide, Im not sure the GOP will ever recover unless they manage to curb the influence of the Rural parts of the state.

[OSR stands with Israel]

this is exactly why I think Oregon will become a swing state in the future(prob not statewide but at a national level yes), as the GOP will become less religious meaning they will do much better in Oregon then they are doing now as the Religious right is a huge reason why Oregon is so dem. Washington on the other hand wont become a swing state(it will become lean Dem though) .


Statewide, Im not sure the GOP will ever recover unless they manage to curb the influence of the Rural parts of the state.

I think your concept of Oregon becoming a "swing state" is a bit far fetched, even by 2030 assuming  that somehow culturally liberal voters in places like the suburbs of Portland, Salem, Corvallis, and Eugene, start voting Republican again at a Presidential Level, that this will be sufficient to make Oregon a competitive state.

One might make a better case that these voters if they start shifting en masse, would make Oregon possibly voting Republican for Oregon Governor, and possibly at the US-House level, and *maybe* start to make up lost ground at the US-SEN level.

Old School--- your definition of "rural Oregon" is very different from mine. The vast majority of "rural" counties have a significant City anchor component. Typically, these areas tend to vote much more Democratic than Rural areas proper.

The reality is that these anchor cities in "rural Oregon" have shifted towards the Republicans more on perception of economic issues than social issues.

Dems shifting towards more of an outright economic populist message, will gain voters in "downstate" Oregon, and easily offset and 'Pub gains at the margins in wealthier precincts in places like West Portland, parts of Washington County, Lake Oswego, not to mention wealthier residents in places in the Hills outside of Eugene and Corvallis.

Sure,, the shift of the Republican Party as a statewide brand towards the Religious Right in the late '80s/ early '90s, with the Oregon Citizens Alliance and all of that homophobic crap they kept pushing, was a direct causality of the massive swings in these places over the next decade or so towards the Democratic Party. Still, it is only a part of the equation when one examines why these places started shifting hard Democratic. Honestly, I'm not convinced that simply "rebranding" the Republican Party will come close to recouping the lost voters in these communities.

The Iraq War was a major issue in the Pacific Northwest.... the lies and deceptions of the W. administration, and a weak President that allowed a small number of extremists ("The Vulcans") to dominate US foreign policy and cause and illegal and unjust war in Iraq, is a major component when you look at the flips in the educated suburbs of Portland, etc....

Oregon has always been a dovish State, from the days of Tom Maccoll and Mark Hatfield to the present day. I have posted elsewhere, that this is the key reason why Republican Senator Gordon Smith was unseated in '08....

It's also the same reason that both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump were able to perform so well in their respective Party primaries....

Meanwhile voters in the suburbs of Portland suburbs are more than happy to vote for minimum wage increases, increases in corporate tax levels, increasing taxes on those making > $250k/Yr, etc.

Not sure about a hypothetical plan to swing Oregon at a Presidential Level, unless the Republican candidates start acting and talking a lot more like Democrats, not just on social issues.

When you look at county by county , the rural parts of Oregon look just as Republican as the states like Idaho and Wyoming are .

Ill give you an example of elections in Oregon:

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?f=0&fips=41&year=1968
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?f=0&fips=41&year=1996
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?f=0&fips=41&year=2016


Looking county by county the GOP has pretty much dominated Eastern Oregon , do pretty well downstate , and other then a few counties like Wascow , and Morrow rural Oregon hasnt changed much. Its been mostly the suburbs what changed .

[OSR stands with Israel]

The Republicans can't win Oregon on the presidential level as long as they keep nominating Trump and Cruz like candidates. Kasich would've lost by maybe 4-5 points.

I say with Kasich, Oregon may flip cause he was leading by 8-10 points in the polls and Oregon is only 8-9 points more dem than the nation which means Oregon could flip with Kasich as nominee. If it was President Romney vs Hillary Oregon definitely flips as Romney wins nationally by 12 points vs Hillary

[OSR stands with Israel]

The Republicans can't win Oregon on the presidential level as long as they keep nominating Trump and Cruz like candidates. Kasich would've lost by maybe 4-5 points.

I say with Kasich, Oregon may flip cause he was leading by 8-10 points in the polls and Oregon is only 8-9 points more dem than the nation which means Oregon could flip with Kasich as nominee. If it was President Romney vs Hillary Oregon definitely flips as Romney wins nationally by 12 points vs Hillary

Kasich would never win a GOP primary.   Hillary vs Romney is just fantasy talk,  I could say Hillary would win Oregon by a bigger margin than Obama did and it'd have just as much credibility.

No Obama won by 4 points nationally  against Mitt and 12 points in Oregon, Kasich was leading by 8-10 points nationally and that means he nation is 12-14 point less democratic so if you do a uniform swing Oregon flips.


Now for Romney he would essiently have a record of the economy tremendously improving in his term , incumbency advantage, facing a scandalous opponent, and in my opinion Foriegn affairs would have been handled better meaning Romney wins at least by same margin Kasich was thus Oregon flips.