Time to face facts, the GOP is NOT a national party

[Non Swing Voter]

I'm going to stop beating around the bush with these threads and see if one of you right wingers can give a coherent argument why the GOP is a national and not hyper-regional party with regard to Presidential elections.

Lets look at the 4 major regions of the country:

Northeast - GOP is entirely shut out, doesn't even compete in all but one state.

West Coast - GOP is entirely shut out, doesn't even compete in any state.

Midwest - At best, GOP wins a draw here.

South - Once the GOP's completely fortified base region... and now, the walls are crumbling from both ends.  Florida is becoming more and more competitive.  Virginia is probably lost to the GOP for a generation.  North Carolina and Georgia are following Virginia's lead.

Is the definition of a national party not one that can compete in every region?  As Democrats have shown for the past 25 years they can?  The only election where Democrats arguably didn't compete in 1 of the 4 regions was Bush v. Kerry, other than that they remained competitive in the South in every other election including Bush v. Gore, where some would say Gore actually won the popular vote in Florida.

On the other hand, the GOP has hardly competed in the Northeast or West Coast in almost every election since Clinton.  The GOP has no plans to rebuild the party in either region.  The GOP doesn't even know how it is going to re-establish its dominance in places like Virginia and North Carolina.

It's kind of pathetic that such a well-funded party has turned into such an unmitigated disaster.

The only way I see the GOP re-establishing itself as a credible national party with regard to Presidential elections is to establish itself as the dominant party in the Midwest.  This means consistently winning the majority of Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, and/or Ohio.  

If the GOP re-established itself as a credible national party in say 10 years by doing this... this is how I would see the national map:

blue = lean D states
red = lean R states
unshaded = pure tossups

http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bFpv

[Non Swing Voter]

The US two party system has always been a regionalized affair.

In fact elections like those of 1960 and 1976, where all states are competative basically, are the exception.

It is regional to a degree.  Most elections one party or another has a base region they try to expand upon.  But the GOP is contracting so much that it can't even solidly rely on its base region (the South) to deliver a huge amount of electoral votes.  Some of the largest electoral prizes in the region are becoming competitive or lean Dem.

Additionally, though there is a GOP troll above that attempts to label me a troll in every thread because I won't respond to his self-serving posts, this topic was about Presidential Elections... so the argument many posters above are making about how the GOP is competing in the Northeast and West Coast is false... they haven't really been competing in any west coast or northeast states (except New Hampshire) in years...

[Non Swing Voter]

I somewhat agree with the OP. I don't think the GOP's dead, but they need a 50-state strategy in order to improve their image... A republican Howard Dean, leading the RNC, would certainly help them, don't you think? They may not win California's or NY EV's, for example, but they need to appeal to their inhabitants to get some cash + some good press.

Exactly... when they are completely shut out of regions like NY/CA/IL... it has consequences beyond those electoral votes.  It's also absurd to not be competing in so many states that offer huge sums of electoral votes.  If the Republicans could count on Florida as a base state it would somewhat offset this between TX/FL... however, even that state could drift away as the I-4 corridor grows in size and becomes heavily minority.

The way I see it... their biggest downfall is that they ceded the urban vote. 

LA, SF, Seattle, Portland make the West Coast not competitive.

NYC metro makes much of the Northeast not competitive, in addition to Boston, Philly.

DC metro makes much of the Mid-Atlantic not competitive.

Chicago metro makes IL not competitive.

Inversely...

Las Vegas, Denver make NV/CO competitive for Democrats or lean Democrat.

South Florida makes FL competitive for Democrats.

Atlanta is starting to make GA competitive for Democrats.

[Non Swing Voter]

These are the states the GOP has carried every time in the past four presidential elections

These are the states with at least one Republican US Senator.

If the fact that no states adjacent to the Pacific Ocean have Republican US Senators or governors means the GOP isn't a national party, does the fact that there are no Democratic governors in the Gulf Coast states mean the Democratic Party isn't a national party?

Why are you talking about the Senate to bolster your argument?  This topic clearly stated that it was about Presidential elections... or did you not actually read the post.  And it's laughable that the gulf coast is comparable to the east and west coasts in your mind.

[Non Swing Voter]

By this logical democrats are not a national party either...dumb argument is dumb

"by this logical..." I stopped reading after this.