How long until Iowa is to the right of Missouri?

[Technocracy Timmy]

Like assuming anywhere remotely cosmopolitan will indefinitely become more Democratic, haha.

With the exception of cosmopolitan areas that are getting large influxes of boomer retirees, I think this is a fairly reliable indicator at least in the next few cycles.

Most cosmopolitan areas are younger, more ethnically/racially/religiously diverse, often more secular, more educated, etc.

[RINO Tom]

Like assuming anywhere remotely cosmopolitan will indefinitely become more Democratic, haha.

With the exception of cosmopolitan areas that are getting large influxes of boomer retirees, I think this is a fairly reliable indicator at least in the next few cycles.

Most cosmopolitan areas are younger, more ethnically/racially/religiously diverse, often more secular, more educated, etc.

I agree in the next few cycles, but he said “permanent.”  Something will shake up our coalitions in the coming decades.

[Xeuma]

Like assuming anywhere remotely cosmopolitan will indefinitely become more Democratic, haha.

With the exception of cosmopolitan areas that are getting large influxes of boomer retirees, I think this is a fairly reliable indicator at least in the next few cycles.

Most cosmopolitan areas are younger, more ethnically/racially/religiously diverse, often more secular, more educated, etc.

I agree in the next few cycles, but he said “permanent.”  Something will shake up our coalitions in the coming decades.

Some things don't change though. Wyoming, Kansas, Utah (to some extent), Nebraska, among others, have all been Republican strongholds for their entire existence, with Kansas even resisting Democrats at the height of the Great Depression.

[lfromnj]

Like assuming anywhere remotely cosmopolitan will indefinitely become more Democratic, haha.

With the exception of cosmopolitan areas that are getting large influxes of boomer retirees, I think this is a fairly reliable indicator at least in the next few cycles.

Most cosmopolitan areas are younger, more ethnically/racially/religiously diverse, often more secular, more educated, etc.

I agree in the next few cycles, but he said “permanent.”  Something will shake up our coalitions in the coming decades.

Some things don't change though. Wyoming, Kansas, Utah (to some extent), Nebraska, among others, have all been Republican strongholds for their entire existence, with Kansas even resisting Democrats at the height of the Great Depression.

The educated and suburban state of kansas needs a populist like 1896 to be winnable for D's

[RINO Tom]

Like assuming anywhere remotely cosmopolitan will indefinitely become more Democratic, haha.

With the exception of cosmopolitan areas that are getting large influxes of boomer retirees, I think this is a fairly reliable indicator at least in the next few cycles.

Most cosmopolitan areas are younger, more ethnically/racially/religiously diverse, often more secular, more educated, etc.

I agree in the next few cycles, but he said “permanent.”  Something will shake up our coalitions in the coming decades.

Some things don't change though. Wyoming, Kansas, Utah (to some extent), Nebraska, among others, have all been Republican strongholds for their entire existence, with Kansas even resisting Democrats at the height of the Great Depression.

Well yeah, some things will.  However, I would argue those things tend to be related to the "baked in" ideology of the parties - no matter the type of Democrat, they will pay lip service to the "disadvantaged" and no matter the type of Republican, they will pay lip service to the idea of the "self made man" or whatever - and not things as sudden as Trump.  Don't get me wrong, the idea that Trump is some never-before-seen type of Republican is just wrong, but I highly doubt he'll usher in 100 years of static political coalitions.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Like assuming anywhere remotely cosmopolitan will indefinitely become more Democratic, haha.

With the exception of cosmopolitan areas that are getting large influxes of boomer retirees, I think this is a fairly reliable indicator at least in the next few cycles.

Most cosmopolitan areas are younger, more ethnically/racially/religiously diverse, often more secular, more educated, etc.

I agree in the next few cycles, but he said “permanent.”  Something will shake up our coalitions in the coming decades.

Some things don't change though. Wyoming, Kansas, Utah (to some extent), Nebraska, among others, have all been Republican strongholds for their entire existence, with Kansas even resisting Democrats at the height of the Great Depression.

Even those things can eventually change. The Democrats were the Party of the south for generations until they weren’t. The GOP were the Party of New England for generations until they weren’t. Some things in politics which seem like 100 year+ long constants can change.

After all it wasn’t until 2008 when we finally elect a Democratic President who for the first time not only didn’t carry Arkansas but lost the state quite badly.

[OneJ]

What did some of you expect? The OP is the same person who said that the GOP would get like ~15% of the black vote or something like that, lol.

[Xeuma]

Like assuming anywhere remotely cosmopolitan will indefinitely become more Democratic, haha.

With the exception of cosmopolitan areas that are getting large influxes of boomer retirees, I think this is a fairly reliable indicator at least in the next few cycles.

Most cosmopolitan areas are younger, more ethnically/racially/religiously diverse, often more secular, more educated, etc.

I agree in the next few cycles, but he said “permanent.”  Something will shake up our coalitions in the coming decades.

Some things don't change though. Wyoming, Kansas, Utah (to some extent), Nebraska, among others, have all been Republican strongholds for their entire existence, with Kansas even resisting Democrats at the height of the Great Depression.

Even those things can eventually change. The Democrats were the Party of the south for generations until they weren’t. The GOP were the Party of New England for generations until they weren’t. Some things in politics which seem like 100 year+ long constants can change.

After all it wasn’t until 2008 when we finally elect a Democratic President who for the first time not only didn’t carry Arkansas but lost the state quite badly.

Of course, things are the way they are, up until that's not true anymore. I think the 2016 trends will be sticking around for a while is my argument.