Future Realignment Possibilities?

[RINO Tom]

^ I know Iowa has become this forum's poster child for "Obama-Trump 'WWC' Voters," but you realize it was staunchly Republican BEFORE Bill Clinton came along (minus one election with a completely unique Farm Crisis situation) and only leaned left after that, right?

[RINO Tom]

^ I know Iowa has become this forum's poster child for "Obama-Trump 'WWC' Voters," but you realize it was staunchly Republican BEFORE Bill Clinton came along (minus one election with a completely unique Farm Crisis situation) and only leaned left after that, right?

Huh?


Iowa was much more Democratic than the national average in 1984, and was also more Democratic than the national average in 1972.

It also went for Dukakis in 1988.

I addressed Dukakis in my post.  And Iowa still hadn't voted for a Democrat in over 20 years until Dukakis and had only supported one in the last 40...

[RINO Tom]

Democrats re-align in a more libertarian direction:

What in tarnation? Tennessee is not libertarian whatsoever, there's no reason for it to be more Democratic than its neighbors. Oklahoma is basically the least libertarian state in the Union, Little Dixie is the epitome of economically egalitarian and socially conservative, so why is it only Lean R? Why would NE-03 be Republican yet Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota be strongly Democratic? Why would Illinois be Republican yet Indiana be Democratic? Why would Vermont lean Republican? Why would Maryland be strongly Republican?

Also, such a realignment would never happen. There are people in this party like myself that would prevent the Democrats from ever becoming so fiscally conservative.

TN: High population growth in a wealthy, mostly white, metro.
OK: Should probably be more R, but I think I messed up with the demographics there.
NE-03: Plains voters are still somewhat republican, especially among the Far West.
IL: Has a lot more southern areas, urban areas, and fewer suburbs. Cook swinging R tips it. Indiana can get more democratic with suburbs going D.
VT: Very economically liberal, which makes a state that's not very satisfied with either party.
MD: Is Likely R, as a combination of rural southerners and urban blacks tips it.

The Democrats voted for Clinton, not Sanders. All the fanboying about him aside, pretending he's certain to be the Moses of the next re-alignment is fantasy.

As is pretending that a majority of Democratic voters don't agree with his ideas, let alone hate libertarian ones.

[RINO Tom]

The Democrats voted for Clinton, not Sanders. All the fanboying about him aside, pretending he's certain to be the Moses of the next re-alignment is fantasy.

Pretending that Democrats want fiscal conservatism is an even bigger fantasy. Any polls showing that Democrats (particularly younger Democrats) are becoming at all interested in Rand Paul's agenda?

Also why have I so rarely come across any libertarian minded Democrat when I live in supposedly a place filled with libertarian minded Democrats (Orange County)?

http://khn.org/news/support-for-sanders-single-payer-plan-fades-with-control-cost-concerns/. Social liberalism is a lot more popular among the democrats than Sander's economic liberalism.

So they're gonna cave on economic issues and become a bunch of Ron Paul types on business, regulation, taxes, and spending and that's how they're gonna win?

Ok well somebody needs to explain this strategy to Schumer with his Better Deal agenda because somehow he's chosen not to take your advice at all. Probably because he talks to actual Democrats.

Copying Trump's dipsh**t positions on Trade isn't the path to a majority.

How can you copy someone's views if you had it before him?? LOL.  Look up the TPA vote by party, dude.

[RINO Tom]

I don't have specifics, as I am not a nerd.  However, I expect this to happen generally:

The current rural/"WWC" trends in favor of the GOP will continue until about 2024 or 2028 and hit a wall.  Similarly, I think the Democratic trends in "wealthy/educated suburbs" will continue until about that time, too, but it will be because those places are actually becoming less wealthy, less educated and more diverse and lazy analysts will still just picture them as the places they used to be.  "Democrats make huge gains in Lake County, IL!" will be viewed as Democrats converting wealthy, White Republicans rather than the actual cause of *most* of the shift, which is Lake County becoming much, much more diverse than it used to be; the latter fact won't stop anyone from thinking of it simply as *Lake County* with all of the classic connotations.  Through all of this, the parties' actual policies won't really change from 2016; it will be a battle of perceptions.

After 2028, as more Boomers die off, the GOP will adopt a less culturally conservative (but not less socially conservative, necessarily) tone to court new and necessary voters, becoming pretty much what they were in the 1950s: a sensible alternative to overly idealistic Democratic rule (a party that now is much closer to Bernie Sanders than to Hillary Clinton).  I think many states will be noticeably different, so it's pretty impossible to predict a map.

[RINO Tom]

Economic data and polling both suggest a social democratic future, not a libertarian one.

What does? Your dreams?

No, economic data and polling.  Read better.  If you hitched your wagon to the Democratic Party because you wanted to be part of a party that was an "enlightened" party with a technocratic flavor, you're frankly a chump.

[RINO Tom]

We are a clash of Mississippian minorities

Arkansas is 72.9% white, well above the national average, and is therefore considered to be one of the whitest Southern states.

upper middle class people

You mean how Arkansas has consistently ranked in the bottom 10 states in terms of GDP per capita for the past decade?

Deep South/Western/Midwestern/Northern culture.

I don't understand your implication here.

I'm not going to try to pretend to know more about your state than you do, but based off of statistical evidence, it seems that you have to try again at your argument.

Also, it's quite hilarious to see you refer to the affection for populism as a vulnerability.

A vulnerability to populism is a vulnerability, whether you think there's a great reasoning for that willingness or not.

[RINO Tom]

"Remarkably little change" doesn't last 50 years.

[RINO Tom]

I mean, it will obviously be this because 2016 was a one-time thing, a "populist" like Sanders (who wins the Democratic nomination without any trouble whatsoever) could clearly do well in WV/KY/MO/AR/etc. (all of which are populist Democratic states at heart), VA and CO will "come home" for the GOP once Trump is gone, Schumer's Better Deal slogan, etc.

In all seriousness, though: I expect to see something like this by 2030...

This map isn't necessarily the result of a "complex realignment" but rather remarkably little change.

And in 2040:

Noting that the bolded is sarcastic, I'm seriously amused at the type of people you think make up the Democratic primary electorate.