Political Trends where you disagree with the Atlas Consensus

[RINO Tom]

Are we supposed to list our toughts on trends (a.k.a., our retort of the Atlas Consensus) or actually list the trends that fit the Atlas Consensus that we disagree with?  This thread is confusing to read, LOL.

[RINO Tom]

Florida will trend D because of the Republicans' constant struggle to take away benefits for older people, immigrants, and their new protectionist policies. This alienates old people, young people (young Cuban-Americans have turned sharply D since 2008, and Puerto Ricans are flooding into the state given the commonwealth's recent troubles), and free trader conservatives.

It remains to be seen if your first claim will "last."  Trump can talk all he want, but the fact is that the "free trader conservatives" vastly outnumber the protectionists among elected Republicans, even in the age of Trump.

[RINO Tom]

Ohio will be a solid R state after 2016, eventually joining the ranks of Tennessee and Kansas.

The Ohio reaction is truly strange.  Trump did as well as a generic Republican with the state's traditional Republican base (suburban voters, rural voters in the Northern part of the state, the affluent, etc.) while also doing WAY better among "White Working Class" voters than the average Republican would have ... it combined for a "perfect storm" and a MOV that is not likely to be repeated that often.  I think Ohio will remain a Lean R swing state (which is honestly what I think it was pre-Trump with Obama being a great fit).

[RINO Tom]

Florida will trend D because of the Republicans' constant struggle to take away benefits for older people, immigrants, and their new protectionist policies. This alienates old people, young people (young Cuban-Americans have turned sharply D since 2008, and Puerto Ricans are flooding into the state given the commonwealth's recent troubles), and free trader conservatives.

It remains to be seen if your first claim will "last."  Trump can talk all he want, but the fact is that the "free trader conservatives" vastly outnumber the protectionists among elected Republicans, even in the age of Trump.

Elected seems to be the key word here. The base of the republican party is not pro free trade anymore.

How do you know the GOP base ever was?  Also, it's at the VERY most equally as protectionist as the Democratic base, right?

[RINO Tom]

Florida will trend D because of the Republicans' constant struggle to take away benefits for older people, immigrants, and their new protectionist policies. This alienates old people, young people (young Cuban-Americans have turned sharply D since 2008, and Puerto Ricans are flooding into the state given the commonwealth's recent troubles), and free trader conservatives.

It remains to be seen if your first claim will "last."  Trump can talk all he want, but the fact is that the "free trader conservatives" vastly outnumber the protectionists among elected Republicans, even in the age of Trump.

Elected seems to be the key word here. The base of the republican party is not pro free trade anymore.

How do you know the GOP base ever was?  Also, it's at the VERY most equally as protectionist as the Democratic base, right?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/25/support-for-free-trade-agreements-rebounds-modestly-but-wide-partisan-differences-remain/. Not anymore. The republican base is not more pro free trade than democrats now.

I know you can read, I said the Democratic BASE.

[RINO Tom]

Can someone explain to me why this site largely believes Illinois will trend heavily Republican?

I don't think that many people do...?  However, I would chalk it up to these two things:

1) This site is full of political nerds who study elections like 1896, 1932 and 1968 and subconsiously REALLY want to be observing some type of realignment; this causes them to engage in some wishful thinking in their predictions and try to come up with scenarios where we see huge shifts of regions ala the South becoming Republican in the late 20th Century, even though there is simply no compelling reason to believe that wasn't a unique scenario that won't be repeated to that scale.  Illinois becoming Republican is part of this way overhyped "Northern Strategy/Sunbelt Strategy" realignment where the GOP adapts to losing Texas and the like by making gains in the North, including Illinois.

2) People envision Chicago's population loss moving it in a more Republican-friendly direction.  Only 13 Illinois counties experienced growth between 2015 and 2016, and 10 of the 13 voted for Trump:

1. Kendall (Chicago suburbs)
2. Piatt (part of the Champaign metro)
3. Monroe (part of Metro East St. Louis suburbs)
4. Johnson (small town Southern Illinois)
5. Menard (part of Springfield metro)
6. Will (Chicago suburbs)
7. Kane (Chicago suburbs)
8. Champaign (University of Illinois)
9. Stark (part of Peoria metro)
10. Jefferson (Mount Vernon, Southern Illinois)
11. Edwards (small town Southern Illinois)
12. Boone (part of Rockford metro)
13. Cumberland (outside of Charleston)

The only two with growth over 1.00% were Kendall and Piatt, and they both went to Trump.  Will and Kane were relatively close and, IMO, probably would have voted for a different Republican.  None of this is to say that IL is going to move in the GOP's direction, but it is hardly following the Georgia model of its faster growing areas being the more Democratic ones.

[RINO Tom]

Florida will trend D because of the Republicans' constant struggle to take away benefits for older people, immigrants, and their new protectionist policies. This alienates old people, young people (young Cuban-Americans have turned sharply D since 2008, and Puerto Ricans are flooding into the state given the commonwealth's recent troubles), and free trader conservatives.

It remains to be seen if your first claim will "last."  Trump can talk all he want, but the fact is that the "free trader conservatives" vastly outnumber the protectionists among elected Republicans, even in the age of Trump.

Elected seems to be the key word here. The base of the republican party is not pro free trade anymore.

How do you know the GOP base ever was?  Also, it's at the VERY most equally as protectionist as the Democratic base, right?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/25/support-for-free-trade-agreements-rebounds-modestly-but-wide-partisan-differences-remain/. Not anymore. The republican base is not more pro free trade than democrats now.

I know you can read, I said the Democratic BASE.

What?

Articulate what confused you.

[RINO Tom]

Democrats will never openly campaign on pro-growth, pro-business policies, and they will never be the consensus for the party no matter how *suburban* it gets (which also has a great deal to do with suburbs being more working class and less White than the suburbs Bush 41 swept).  Additionally, the GOP will never openly campaign on economically populist/redistributionist policies, and they will never be the consensus of the party no matter how *working class* it gets.

Also, Jimmie, no one thinks NH or IL will be "solid GOP" states ... you just want to keep talking about it.

[RINO Tom]

That only a Charlie Baker-type Republican can win a national election in 15 years.

Is that an Atlas consensus?

[RINO Tom]

That only a Charlie Baker-type Republican can win a national election in 15 years.

It comes from the BTM Timelines.

Any Republican President in the next 15 years is gonna have to run in an electorate that’s roughly 62% nonhispanic white filled with millennial and college educated folks and 34-35% of those whites will always vote Democrat. So certain elements of today’s GOP will have to be greatly re-modified to win these emerging groups.

But I definitely agree that the idea that they’ll basically be a moderate Democrat ala Charlie Baker is pretty hackish even for liberals to think.

By definition, Charlie Baker is as much of a moderate Republican as a "moderate Democrat" ... kind of the point of moderates, no?