Talk Elections

Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion => Presidential Election Trends => Topic started by: Sir Mohamed on July 22, 2019, 02:00:32 am



Title: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Sir Mohamed on July 22, 2019, 02:00:32 am
Whether Trump gets a another term or not isn't the question, sooner or later there's going to be another GOP prez in the 2020s or 2030s. What will be his or her path to 270 EVs? Through running a populist campaign in the Midwest, breaking through the so called Blue Wall? Or will the victory map look similar to W's path minus VA and CO? Or something different?

Keep in mind the EC is changing after each census.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: pppolitics on July 22, 2019, 02:04:50 pm
On the current path, I don't see a way forward.

Even a good map for the Republican is a losing map

()

Republican Party would have to be a very different party by then to win.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: brucejoel99 on July 22, 2019, 02:53:32 pm
()


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: L.D. Smith on July 22, 2019, 02:59:42 pm
On the current path, I don't see a way forward.

Even a good map for the Republican is a losing map

()

Republican Party would have to be a very different party by then to win.

Flip New Mexico and Oregon and that map is a winner.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: pppolitics on July 22, 2019, 05:54:22 pm
On the current path, I don't see a way forward.

Even a good map for the Republican is a losing map

()

Republican Party would have to be a very different party by then to win.

Flip New Mexico and Oregon and that map is a winner.

...but what demographics favor Republicans in New Mexico and Oregon?


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Cassandra on July 22, 2019, 08:34:32 pm
The path Trump blazed ought to stay viable for a few more cycles.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: L.D. Smith on July 22, 2019, 09:14:11 pm
On the current path, I don't see a way forward.

Even a good map for the Republican is a losing map

()

Republican Party would have to be a very different party by then to win.

Flip New Mexico and Oregon and that map is a winner.

...but what demographics favor Republicans in New Mexico and Oregon?

If the GOP/Dems become more and more polarized by urban-Coastal-minorities vs rural-"Heartland"-white, well there's your answer.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Tekken_Guy on July 23, 2019, 06:41:09 am
The GOP can still easily win every state that Trump did. Even if PA and MI are off the table they should still be able to carry out a win in Wisconsin.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: mathstatman on July 23, 2019, 07:21:52 am
Using 270ToWin EV projections, if the Dems pick up AZ + GA + NC and the GOP picks up NH, the result would be a 269-269 tie.

https://www.270towin.com/custom-maps/projected-2024-electoral-vote-allocation


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Kyng on July 23, 2019, 11:55:07 am
Let's suppose demographic changes push TX + AZ + GA into the Democratic column (which, in addition to the Hillary 2016 states, would be a 298-240 EV win for the Democrats on the 2024 map). How does the GOP respond? I can think of a few ways:

1. Become more competitive with minorities

Perhaps the GOP manages to appeal to Asians or white Hispanics or whoever. If they do this, they should at least keep TX (and probably also GA and AZ) out of the 'Safe D' column, so their current path to 270 would still be viable.

2. Become more competitive with moderate whites

This would be necessary if TX (and AZ and GA) move out of reach. The first states to fall with this path would be MN + NH + ME-AL; however, that still yields a 283-255 win for the Democrats. However, I can see them making further gains in places like New England, especially if they moderate on the 'religious right' stuff (or if the Democrats' increasingly minority-centric coalition leads to anti-whiteness in their ranks, which they fail to tackle effectively). If the GOP can win something like ME-01 + RI + DE + OR, then that gets them to 270-268.

3. Ride their own wave of demographic change

As in scenario #2, the GOP is winning MN + NH + ME-AL, getting them to 255 electoral votes. The remaining 15 will come from demographic changes which are in their favour. If liberals and minorities are moving to the Sun Belt in large enough numbers to put TX + AZ + GA out of reach, then they're moving from somewhere, and the places they're moving from will become more conservative as a result. For example, perhaps Chicago's population drops to the point where IL becomes competitive - and then, the GOP gets over 270 by flipping it.



Do note that, in the map where Democrats are winning 283-255 (that is, 2016 + TX + AZ + GA - MN - NH - ME-AL), they're only winning 20 states to the GOP's 30. If the Democrats rely on this coalition, then they're going to have a serious Senate problem - so the GOP will still be able to exert a lot of influence even if they fall short of winning the presidency.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: 🌐 on July 23, 2019, 01:37:30 pm
On the current path, I don't see a way forward.

Even a good map for the Republican is a losing map

()

Republican Party would have to be a very different party by then to win.

Flip New Mexico and Oregon and that map is a winner.

...but what demographics favor Republicans in New Mexico and Oregon?

If the GOP/Dems become more and more polarized by urban-Coastal-minorities vs rural-"Heartland"-white, well there's your answer.

Um, Oregon is urban and coastal and New Mexico is majority minorities, so I don't see your point. If Knute couldn't win Oregon, no Republican can, and winning New Mexico would require a realignment. A map like this for a cycle or two might get the GOP on board with NPV.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Annatar on July 23, 2019, 09:20:01 pm
As long as the GOP can keep winning TX and FL getting to 270 will remain easy, if TX and FL stay Republican, than even if AZ, GA and NC, all 3 go full democratic, than Trump 2016 + MN will be enough to win. The GOP can afford to lose virtually all the large competitive states in the south and west as long as they can win TX and FL.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: pbrower2a on July 25, 2019, 10:48:01 pm
Figuring that Donald Trump will be an electoral disaster in 2020 and that the Democrat will win a second term for all practical purposes...

Yes, the Democrat will win a second term because the conditions that applied to Clinton, Dubya, and Obama will still be there: even a mediocre President gets a second term. Should the incumbent President be in no condition to run for re-election, I expect that that President will have invested some political capital in the Vice-President who will (pardon the use of a Reagan-era expression) stay the course.  So far I see Trump as unspeakably awful and I expect him to take down his political enablers with him.

The best that the Republicans can hope for is that Americans will tire of the Democrat in due time. The last time that such happened involved the elder Bush as a successor to the highly-successful Ronald Reagan. Bush could not offer a coherent vision for a Second Act, and he lost to someone who could. Clinton promised to maintain the Reagan-Bush foreign policy that people liked. Clinton won.

Two of the leaders in the Democratic contention for nomination (Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden) are unusually old candidates. In view of actuarial concerns about life expectancy and mental debility, either could be one-term Presidents for reasons of health. In such a case the Democrats may have invested in a competent nominee for VP who runs for election for an open Presidency in 2024 and, as is usual for even a mediocre President, gets re-elected. Now what about 2028 or 2032?

Donald Trump is completely discredited, and Republicans have moved away from him. Maybe in some recession some Republican governor has the reputation of miraculously avoiding the worst. Or a Democratic President has had a highly-successful war (not of his choosing, but the blunder of provoking the USA was a really bad idea -- see Saddam Hussein, who expected to get away with annexing Kuwait) and the Republicans nominate an Eisenhower-like general to be President.

We can rule out as a possibility that we will have a business tycoon with no political experience. Donald Trump will be the last such person for perhaps a century. We will more likely have a sports hero (probably a bad idea, too).

This assumes that the Republican Party will not fade as did the Federalists and Whigs. In such a case the Democratic Party becomes and unwieldy big-tent Party and splits into regional and social factions -- maybe a Social Democratic Party and a Christian Democratic Party. Such would be a modern version of the formation of the Whigs and the Republican Party.   

 


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Cory Booker on July 26, 2019, 07:38:45 pm
The GOP party will attempt to galvanize the Latino vote and it will be a Tom Cotton, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz primary in 2024. Winning NH and NV, is the only way conservatives can get back the presidency. They won't duplicate Trump path of stealing WI/PA or MI away from the Dems again.

Cruz will win the nomination, unless Rubio runs and attempt to make inroads in NH and NV.

The same will apply to 2028, if another GOP senator or governor run









































































































































































































































.














Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: morgankingsley on July 27, 2019, 02:22:21 am
The GOP party will attempt to galvanize the Latino vote and it will be a Tom Cotton, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz primary in 2024. Winning NH and NV, is the only way conservatives can get back the presidency. They won't duplicate Trump path of stealing WI/PA or MI away from the Dems again.

Cruz will win the nomination, unless Rubio runs and attempt to make inroads in NH and NV.

The same will apply to 2028, if another GOP senator or governor run









































































































































































































































.














Why did your post have the biggest amount of blank space in the history of internet posting


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 27, 2019, 05:31:18 pm
The GOP party will attempt to galvanize the Latino vote and it will be a Tom Cotton, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz primary in 2024. Winning NH and NV, is the only way conservatives can get back the presidency. They won't duplicate Trump path of stealing WI/PA or MI away from the Dems again.

Cruz will win the nomination, unless Rubio runs and attempt to make inroads in NH and NV.

The same will apply to 2028, if another GOP senator or governor run.


For a long time I thought that if Trump lost in 2020, Cruz would be the nominee in 2024 and he would get decimated.

Nevada is a very precarious path to 270 based on its history in recent times and demographics are far more favorable to the GOP in Wisconsin, Michigan and PA then they are in Nevada.

By 2024, I expect GA to have gone Democratic and there is nothing the Hispanic vote will do to stop that. Meaning that the GOP needs Michigan to compensate.

2016 proved that it is far easier to the Republicans embrace economic nationalism for rust belt votes than it is to reverse the clock back to 2004. And politics like water, follows the path of least resistance.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: jrk26 on July 28, 2019, 04:05:01 pm
The GOP party will attempt to galvanize the Latino vote and it will be a Tom Cotton, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz primary in 2024. Winning NH and NV, is the only way conservatives can get back the presidency. They won't duplicate Trump path of stealing WI/PA or MI away from the Dems again.

Cruz will win the nomination, unless Rubio runs and attempt to make inroads in NH and NV.

The same will apply to 2028, if another GOP senator or governor run









































































































































































































































.














Why did your post have the biggest amount of blank space in the history of internet posting

Because he isn't too bright.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Idaho Conservative on August 03, 2019, 01:13:18 am
The GOP party will attempt to galvanize the Latino vote and it will be a Tom Cotton, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz primary in 2024. Winning NH and NV, is the only way conservatives can get back the presidency. They won't duplicate Trump path of stealing WI/PA or MI away from the Dems again.

Cruz will win the nomination, unless Rubio runs and attempt to make inroads in NH and NV.

The same will apply to 2028, if another GOP senator or governor run.


For a long time I thought that if Trump lost in 2020, Cruz would be the nominee in 2024 and he would get decimated.

Nevada is a very precarious path to 270 based on its history in recent times and demographics are far more favorable to the GOP in Wisconsin, Michigan and PA then they are in Nevada.

By 2024, I expect GA to have gone Democratic and there is nothing the Hispanic vote will do to stop that. Meaning that the GOP needs Michigan to compensate.

2016 proved that it is far easier to the Republicans embrace economic nationalism for rust belt votes than it is to reverse the clock back to 2004. And politics like water, follows the path of least resistance.
why be weak and accept blue GA?  Keep it red, no matter what.  A more favorable judiciary could help corrective measures be ruled constitutional.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: MB on August 03, 2019, 02:16:22 am
I could see a 2040s-ish GOP win electoral map looking something like this:

()


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Skill and Chance on August 03, 2019, 03:00:29 am
The GOP party will attempt to galvanize the Latino vote and it will be a Tom Cotton, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz primary in 2024. Winning NH and NV, is the only way conservatives can get back the presidency. They won't duplicate Trump path of stealing WI/PA or MI away from the Dems again.

Cruz will win the nomination, unless Rubio runs and attempt to make inroads in NH and NV.

The same will apply to 2028, if another GOP senator or governor run.


For a long time I thought that if Trump lost in 2020, Cruz would be the nominee in 2024 and he would get decimated.

Nevada is a very precarious path to 270 based on its history in recent times and demographics are far more favorable to the GOP in Wisconsin, Michigan and PA then they are in Nevada.

By 2024, I expect GA to have gone Democratic and there is nothing the Hispanic vote will do to stop that. Meaning that the GOP needs Michigan to compensate.

2016 proved that it is far easier to the Republicans embrace economic nationalism for rust belt votes than it is to reverse the clock back to 2004. And politics like water, follows the path of least resistance.

This.  There's a ton of handwringing here about how much trouble the GOP is in if e.g. more of the South flips in the next 2-3 elections, but between the 2 extremes, Dems getting narrowly shut out of everything but the House for ~20 years like the late 19th century is the far more plausible scenario.  The idea of generational Dem dominance based on changing demographics had definitively failed by 2014, and it's naive to keep resurrecting it.  It might work in a specific state or 2 (GA?), but even then most of the recent Dem gains in the South are more about consolidating the college + vote than anything else.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Cory Booker on August 08, 2019, 04:08:11 pm
GOP wont be able to do what Trump did in 2016, Trump was only to win the midwest due the Wikileaks scandal and Gary Johnson.

Gary Johnson isnt running anymore, more than likely its Schultz in 2020 and he wont have the same enthusiasm as Johnson did.

If its Biden-Ryan or Harris-Beto, whom appeal to rust belt and sunbelt, the 270 map is gone for next two elections


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 08, 2019, 11:59:25 pm
The GOP party will attempt to galvanize the Latino vote and it will be a Tom Cotton, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz primary in 2024. Winning NH and NV, is the only way conservatives can get back the presidency. They won't duplicate Trump path of stealing WI/PA or MI away from the Dems again.

Cruz will win the nomination, unless Rubio runs and attempt to make inroads in NH and NV.

The same will apply to 2028, if another GOP senator or governor run.


For a long time I thought that if Trump lost in 2020, Cruz would be the nominee in 2024 and he would get decimated.

Nevada is a very precarious path to 270 based on its history in recent times and demographics are far more favorable to the GOP in Wisconsin, Michigan and PA then they are in Nevada.

By 2024, I expect GA to have gone Democratic and there is nothing the Hispanic vote will do to stop that. Meaning that the GOP needs Michigan to compensate.

2016 proved that it is far easier to the Republicans embrace economic nationalism for rust belt votes than it is to reverse the clock back to 2004. And politics like water, follows the path of least resistance.
why be weak and accept blue GA?  Keep it red, no matter what.  A more favorable judiciary could help corrective measures be ruled constitutional.

One doesn't use "corrective measures" when a state starts going against you.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Democrats have a solid or rising floor and the Republican ceiling is dropping every cycle. This doesn't just apply to Georgia, but most every sunbelt state.

As white voters become more educated and more secular, the the GOP percentage among the white vote will continue to drop from the inflated levels that it has been at since the 1990s (basically when Boomers became dominate voting block). This is especially so since the inflated levels skew heavily from Boomer whites while younger whites are far less race conscious, far less religious and thus far more Democratic.

As the Republicans can no longer command such inflated 65%, 75% and in Mississippi a whopping 85% of the white vote, the rising Democrat tide will swamp them making the sunbelt look a great deal like oceanic earth over 4 billion years ago with very little red clay to speak of.

Take this 2012 trend map:
()

Or the exit polling data compiled from 2014 that displays the differential between younger and older voters in most sunbelt states and the results are dramatic with Democrats performing in some cases 20 and 30 points better with younger voters.

Or take the 2016 trend map:
()

The major difference between the two is that one is driven more by minority voting and the other by education attainment. When you combine the two trends over time, and factor in the exit poll data mentioned above and then what we saw in 2018 in states like GA and TX, then you have four different elections that all point in the same direction.

The Republican South is the equivalent of a red barn in a designated flood zone for a TVA man made lake.

If you were to become immortal and travel to another galaxy and come back after 400 million years, you would not recognize the geography of the planet.

The political map is the same way. This was the first Republican Presidential victory after Trump's birth:
()

Just 30 years ago, the Republicans were just narrowly losing New York and California was their most reliable big state and Illinois was second most reliable.

The reason why so many people on this forum cannot fathom that now, is the same reason they could not fathom Pangea or Rodinia. We are used to seeing the South go Republican and thus the fact that  Virginia, GA, TX, NC and eventually maybe even MS might be solid Democratic again is scary.

The Republican Party survived 100 years without winning any of those states (except for some of them in 1928), it will adapt and evolve to meet the new reality just as life will evolve to meet the new realities this planet throws at it at least until the Sun bakes it into another Venus.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: marty on August 09, 2019, 12:09:00 am
Something will happen somewhere along the line that will hurt the dems and give gop an opening.

This board MUST ditch the insane idea that the dems will have a "lock" on the presidency. There has never been a party with a lock on the presidency. Ever.

I don't care what year it is or what the demographic makeup of the electorate is: if a dem is in power and a recession hits around election time, the dem will lose.

Do you guys not grasp that the single fastest growing preference is "unaffiliated"? People are fed up with both parties. Dems aren't exactly all sunshine and ice cream right now.

Also, their current coalition of fiscally conservative suburban whites and hardcore urban progressives will fall apart once trump leaves and is no longer common enemy.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Idaho Conservative on August 09, 2019, 12:42:07 am
The GOP party will attempt to galvanize the Latino vote and it will be a Tom Cotton, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz primary in 2024. Winning NH and NV, is the only way conservatives can get back the presidency. They won't duplicate Trump path of stealing WI/PA or MI away from the Dems again.

Cruz will win the nomination, unless Rubio runs and attempt to make inroads in NH and NV.

The same will apply to 2028, if another GOP senator or governor run.


For a long time I thought that if Trump lost in 2020, Cruz would be the nominee in 2024 and he would get decimated.

Nevada is a very precarious path to 270 based on its history in recent times and demographics are far more favorable to the GOP in Wisconsin, Michigan and PA then they are in Nevada.

By 2024, I expect GA to have gone Democratic and there is nothing the Hispanic vote will do to stop that. Meaning that the GOP needs Michigan to compensate.

2016 proved that it is far easier to the Republicans embrace economic nationalism for rust belt votes than it is to reverse the clock back to 2004. And politics like water, follows the path of least resistance.
why be weak and accept blue GA?  Keep it red, no matter what.  A more favorable judiciary could help corrective measures be ruled constitutional.

One doesn't use "corrective measures" when a state starts going against you.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Democrats have a solid or rising floor and the Republican ceiling is dropping every cycle. This doesn't just apply to Georgia, but most every sunbelt state.

As white voters become more educated and more secular, the the GOP percentage among the white vote will continue to drop from the inflated levels that it has been at since the 1990s (basically when Boomers became dominate voting block). This is especially so since the inflated levels skew heavily from Boomer whites while younger whites are far less race conscious, far less religious and thus far more Democratic.

As the Republicans can no longer command such inflated 65%, 75% and in Mississippi a whopping 85% of the white vote, the rising Democrat tide will swamp them making the sunbelt look a great deal like oceanic earth over 4 billion years ago with very little red clay to speak of.

Take this 2012 trend map:
()

Or the exit polling data compiled from 2014 that displays the differential between younger and older voters in most sunbelt states and the results are dramatic with Democrats performing in some cases 20 and 30 points better with younger voters.

Or take the 2016 trend map:
()

The major difference between the two is that one is driven more by minority voting and the other by education attainment. When you combine the two trends over time, and factor in the exit poll data mentioned above and then what we saw in 2018 in states like GA and TX, then you have four different elections that all point in the same direction.

The Republican South is the equivalent of a red barn in a designated flood zone for a TVA man made lake.

If you were to become immortal and travel to another galaxy and come back after 400 million years, you would not recognize the geography of the planet.

The political map is the same way. This was the first Republican Presidential victory after Trump's birth:
()

Just 30 years ago, the Republicans were just narrowly losing New York and California was their most reliable big state and Illinois was second most reliable.

The reason why so many people on this forum cannot fathom that now, is the same reason they could not fathom Pangea or Rodinia. We are used to seeing the South go Republican and thus the fact that  Virginia, GA, TX, NC and eventually maybe even MS might be solid Democratic again is scary.

The Republican Party survived 100 years without winning any of those states (except for some of them in 1928), it will adapt and evolve to meet the new reality just as life will evolve to meet the new realities this planet throws at it at least until the Sun bakes it into another Venus.
What I've noticed about you is you are all doom and gloom about republican chances in the south, but oppose any effort to fight back.  It's as if D trends are set in stone and immovable.  We are talking politics not physics, I agree republicans need to wake up and see these trends for what they are.  But we shouldn't preemptively surrender. Politics is about winning, a party which won't do what it takes to win doesn't deserve to.  The left is willing to challenge any societal or legal tradition, they fight, and they WIN.  Let's learn from them and go on the offense.  How about trying to get reynold v simms overturned?  How about states choosing electors by the state leg instead of statewide popular vote? Sure we might fail, better to fail after putting up a good fight tho.  Not like we have anything to lose.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: bronz4141 on August 09, 2019, 10:57:46 am
Something will happen somewhere along the line that will hurt the dems and give gop an opening.

This board MUST ditch the insane idea that the dems will have a "lock" on the presidency. There has never been a party with a lock on the presidency. Ever.

I don't care what year it is or what the demographic makeup of the electorate is: if a dem is in power and a recession hits around election time, the dem will lose.

Do you guys not grasp that the single fastest growing preference is "unaffiliated"? People are fed up with both parties. Dems aren't exactly all sunshine and ice cream right now.

Also, their current coalition of fiscally conservative suburban whites and hardcore urban progressives will fall apart once trump leaves and is no longer common enemy.

This.

Parties change, realignments change.

The GOP will not be extinct.

We live in a two-party system, not a one-party utopia. Never have, never will--unless Americans are foolish to allow it.



Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Wherever you want to go, you can't go there! on August 09, 2019, 06:04:46 pm
Something will happen somewhere along the line that will hurt the dems and give gop an opening.

This board MUST ditch the insane idea that the dems will have a "lock" on the presidency. There has never been a party with a lock on the presidency. Ever.

I don't care what year it is or what the demographic makeup of the electorate is: if a dem is in power and a recession hits around election time, the dem will lose.

Do you guys not grasp that the single fastest growing preference is "unaffiliated"? People are fed up with both parties. Dems aren't exactly all sunshine and ice cream right now.

Also, their current coalition of fiscally conservative suburban whites and hardcore urban progressives will fall apart once trump leaves and is no longer common enemy.

This.

Parties change, realignments change.

The GOP will not be extinct.

We live in a two-party system, not a one-party utopia. Never have, never will--unless Americans are foolish to allow it.



I totally agree. This isn’t an if issue or even a when issue. It’s a how. There’s a spectrum for that between Trump being quickly discredited and being the next Carter, being slowly discredited like W., being able to have a minor legacy like H.W.,Clinton, him redefining the Republican Party like Obama did with the dems or him redefining redefining the system like Reagan. My guess is that he will eventually be discredited.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Skill and Chance on August 10, 2019, 03:34:31 pm
Something will happen somewhere along the line that will hurt the dems and give gop an opening.

This board MUST ditch the insane idea that the dems will have a "lock" on the presidency. There has never been a party with a lock on the presidency. Ever.

I don't care what year it is or what the demographic makeup of the electorate is: if a dem is in power and a recession hits around election time, the dem will lose.

Do you guys not grasp that the single fastest growing preference is "unaffiliated"? People are fed up with both parties. Dems aren't exactly all sunshine and ice cream right now.

Also, their current coalition of fiscally conservative suburban whites and hardcore urban progressives will fall apart once trump leaves and is no longer common enemy.

Historically, isn't generational dominance more likely than close elections with lots of flips?  1932-48 (5/0 D), 1896-1908 (4/0 R), 1860-1880 (6/0 R in election results, still 4/0 R without the complicated situation in 1864) and 1800-20 (6/0 DR) did happen.  Perhaps we are underrating the Republicans stay in the WH until 2032/Democrats in the WH from 2020-2036 scenarios?


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: 538Electoral on August 11, 2019, 06:21:04 am
On the current path, I don't see a way forward.

Even a good map for the Republican is a losing map

()

Republican Party would have to be a very different party by then to win.

This assumes TX goes Democratic which I don't think will happen for a few more cycles and Republicans do have other options without TX anyway.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: 538Electoral on August 11, 2019, 06:27:18 am
()

There's still a clear path to 270 for the GOP beyond Trump. Stop acting like Republicans will never win after 2016 or 2020. Yes, I think AZ, TX and GA could narrowly stay Republican for a while after Trump.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: AN63093 on August 12, 2019, 12:11:33 pm
I could see a 2040s-ish GOP win electoral map looking something like this:

()


Good map.  Something like that is my current guess for where the future coalitions will be.. I hesitate to say the path "beyond Trump-era" as the OP did, because of course, that presumes the Trump "era" is something that ends with his administration, as opposed to a indicator of where the parties are going.  So I will just say "the future."

One state I would probably flip is NJ.  I would also consider IL, which could become a swing state again- if we're talking about a 20-30+ year timeframe.  That is going to mainly depend on the Chicago area and whether it continues to lose population.  Obviously it's too early to make predictions as far that goes, but one possible path for Chicago's future is to follow in the footsteps of St Louis, in which case IL is certainly going to become a swing state again, it's just a matter of when.  Or Chicago could end up more like Minneapolis.  We'll see.

One other thing that's almost certain to happen is MS will flip by the 2040s, maybe earlier.  This has mainly to do with demographic change, which I won't go into right now since NC Yankee has already posted a lot of good stuff on this in another thread (which I'm too lazy to find at the moment).  I haven't done the math yet, but it's possible some other Deep South states will see the same dynamic, such as LA.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: R.P. McM on August 13, 2019, 03:05:29 am
Good map.  Something like that is my current guess for where the future coalitions will be.. I hesitate to say the path "beyond Trump-era" as the OP did, because of course, that presumes the Trump "era" is something that ends with his administration, as opposed to a indicator of where the parties are going.  So I will just say "the future."

One state I would probably flip is NJ.  I would also consider IL, which could become a swing state again- if we're talking about a 20-30+ year timeframe.  That is going to mainly depend on the Chicago area and whether it continues to lose population.  Obviously it's too early to make predictions as far that goes, but one possible path for Chicago's future is to follow in the footsteps of St Louis, in which case IL is certainly going to become a swing state again, it's just a matter of when.  Or Chicago could end up more like Minneapolis.  We'll see.

Assuming the present political/demographic trends hold, I don't see how that's possible. Cook County may be shrinking, but so is the rest of IL — at a faster rate. The Chicago MSA is actually increasing as a share of the state's total population. And the vote disparity is widening:
  ___
|CHI|       %/Pop. ┊   D-votes  ┊   R-votes   ┊  Margin
2000  .....  61.4% ┊ 1,655,582 ┊ 1,010,051 ┊  D+24
2016  .....  62.1% ┊ 2,210,378 ┊    964,274 ┊  D+39

Not exactly comparable to situation in St. Louis/MO:
  ___
|STL|       %/Pop. ┊  D-votes  ┊  R-votes  ┊  Margin
2000  .....  35.8% ┊  467,267 ┊  394,759 ┊   D+8
2016  .....  34.8% ┊  512,964 ┊  478,652 ┊   D+3

Obviously, the current trajectory isn't immutable. But if we plot a straight line from 2016, at no point does IL become competitive. The GOP would have to substantially narrow the gap in Chicagoland, and at the moment, the exact opposite is happening.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: AN63093 on August 13, 2019, 10:21:34 am
Yes, you are correct, assuming you plot a straight line- but that is what I am precisely not assuming.  In other words, I think, particularly in this case, that we can't assume present demographic trends hold.  The reason is because if you look at Rust Belt cities, e.g., Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, etc., you'll notice that they all follow a somewhat similar pattern in terms of population decline.  It starts off relatively small (maybe around -5%), but then it passes some critical point, where a vicious circle begins, the rate of decline starts increasing (up to the -20% range), and there is this mass exodus until the city stabilizes at a much smaller size.  In some cases, the decline is still ongoing (such as Detroit, which has lost over 60% of its population from a peak at around 1.85 million).  In other cases like Cleveland and Buffalo, they have started to plateau, but only after losing about 60% of their population (which is also about how much Detroit and St Louis has lost- we will see how much further they have to go).  

Now contrast to a city like Minneapolis, which has gone down a completely different path.  It appeared as if it was heading down the same route, and lost about 30% of its population in the 70s (like many other US cities), but the difference is, for whatever reason (I'm not going to address what it could be in this post), it turned things around and is now growing at >10%, such that it will be rebound to where it was in the 70s by the next census.

So what is the difference?  Well, I'm not exactly sure (I do think that Minneapolis is a much better run city than Chicago), but whatever it is- there does appear to be a critical point where the vicious circle kicks in- maybe one major industry leaves, then some people leave, which causes property values to go down, which causes property tax revenue to go down, which causes schools to decrease in quality, which causes the city to increase taxes to make up the shortfall, which causes more people to leave, which makes more industries want to leave to chase talent, and so on and so forth.  For any given city, there is a critical point where the floodgates will open- Minneapolis was able to turn things around before that point, Cleveland and St Louis were not.  

So what category is Chicago in?  I'm not sure, but I do think that the next 20-30 years will be very important for it and it is at high risk of passing that hypothetical "critical point" in the relatively near future.  And if it does, it's quite possible the decline will be rapid and perhaps irreversible.  At some point it looked like Chicago was going to weather this storm since it actually gained population in 2000, but then it declined again in 2010.  A better example of a large city that is stable is NYC, which had a drop in the 80s (again, like many other cities), but since then is consistently hitting a small % of growth- enough to keep it above 8 million.

I don't think the mere fact that Chicago is large will be enough to save it (although it helps).  Keep in mind that cities come and go (with the exception of NY, which has been #1 in the census every year since they started it)- many people do not realize this, but St Louis was once the 4th largest city in the US, Cleveland was in the top 10 for almost the entire 20th century, peaking at #5 (and only dropped out in the 80s), Detroit was the 4th largest city in the US for over 30 years, etc.  Heck, Buffalo was once in the top 10 (how many people reading this thread knew that?).  

It won't happen this census, but by next census, Houston is actually on track to pass Chicago as the third largest city.  Now I don't have a crystal ball, so who knows what will happen.  But right now, for reasons I'm not going to get into at the moment, I think there are indicators that Chicago is not going to stabilize in the way that NYC has, and certainly not turn things completely around like Minneapolis.  But who knows, maybe it will.  If it does, then yes- you are right, IL will stay D for the foreseeable future.  I do think the next couple decades will be critical for Chicago's future- we'll see what happens.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Wherever you want to go, you can't go there! on August 13, 2019, 10:29:26 am
Yes, you are correct, assuming you plot a straight line- but that is what I am precisely not assuming.  In other words, I think, particularly in this case, that we can't assume present demographic trends hold.  The reason is because if you look at Rust Belt cities, e.g., Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, etc., you'll notice that they all follow a somewhat similar pattern in terms of population decline.  It starts off relatively small (maybe around -5%), but then it passes some critical point, where a vicious circle begins, the rate of decline starts increasing (up to the -20% range), and there is this mass exodus until the city stabilizes at a much smaller size.  In some cases, the decline is still ongoing (such as Detroit, which has lost over 60% of its population from a peak at around 1.85 million).  In other cases like Cleveland and Buffalo, they have started to plateau, but only after losing about 60% of their population (which is also about how much Detroit and St Louis has lost- we will see how much further they have to go).  

Now contrast to a city like Minneapolis, which has gone down a completely different path.  It appeared as if it was heading down the same route, and lost about 30% of its population in the 70s (like many other US cities), but the difference is, for whatever reason (I'm not going to address what it could be in this post), it turned things around and is now growing at >10%, such that it will be rebound to where it was in the 70s by the next census.

So what is the difference?  Well, I'm not exactly sure (I do think that Minneapolis is a much better run city than Chicago), but whatever it is- there does appear to be a critical point where the vicious circle kicks in- maybe one major industry leaves, then some people leave, which causes property values to go down, which causes property tax revenue to go down, which causes schools to decrease in quality, which causes the city to need to increase taxes to make up a deficit, which causes more people to leave, which makes more industries want to leave to chase talent, and so on and so forth.  For any given city, there is a critical point where the floodgates will open- Minneapolis was able to turn things around before that point, Cleveland and St Louis were not.  

So what category is Chicago in?  I'm not sure, but I do think that the next 20-30 years will be very important for it and it is at high risk of passing that hypothetical "critical point" in the relatively near future.  And if it does, it's quite possible the decline will be rapid and perhaps irreversible.  At same point it looked like Chicago was going to weather this storm since it actually gained population in 2000, but then it declined again in 2010.  A better example of a large city that is stable is NYC, which had a drop in the 80s (again, like many other cities), but since then is consistently hitting a small % of growth- enough to keep it above 8 million.

I don't think the mere fact that Chicago is large will be enough to save it (although it helps).  Keep in mind that cities come and go (with the exception of NY, which has been #1 in the census every year since they started it)- many people do not realize this, but St Louis was once the 4th largest city in the US, Cleveland was in the top 10 for almost the entire 20th century, peaking at #5 (and only dropped out in the 80s), Detroit was the 4th largest city in the US for over 30 years, etc.  Heck, Buffalo was once in the top 10 (how many people reading this thread knew that?).  

It won't happen this census, but by next census, Houston is actually on track to pass Chicago as the third largest city.  Now I don't have a crystal ball, so who knows what will happen.  But right now, for reasons I'm not going to get into at the moment, I think there are indicators that Chicago is not going to stabilize in the way that NYC has, and certainly not turn things completely around like Minneapolis.  But who knows, maybe it will.  If it does, then yes- you are right, IL will stay D for the foreseeable future.  I do think the next couple decades will be critical for Chicago's future- we'll see what happens.

It has actually grown a little bit between 2010 and 2018. Who knows what that means, though. There's still a lot of construction downtown and even a new supertall is being built.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: AN63093 on August 13, 2019, 10:56:30 am
Technically yes, but it's negligible (I think <0.5%), and may not even be that by the next census.  Still significantly below the national average.  Also, you have to look at the bigger picture.  If it was just the city that'd be one thing, but the surrounding area is shrinking as well.  Cook County is on track to lose population, the greater Chicago MSA (if it's lucky) will have a tiny bit of growth by the next census (<0.5%), Will County, which had some of the highest amount of growth in the area, is projected to hit almost no growth (this is after growing at >30% for several decades straight).  Same story in DuPage, same story in Lake County (it's actually conceivable that Lake loses population).. which I think is actually pretty important, because it means that this isn't just a case of white flight or whatever, it means that the affluent are no longer moving to the area either.. this indicates that the "elites" no longer see the Chicago area as a fashionable or desirable place to live, which will have a "trickle down" effect (ugh, I know, but I couldn't think of a better term).

This is all going to compound on itself and like I said, it will sneak up on people (and it won't be obvious until it's already well under way), but this means there is a high risk that the "critical point" I discussed above will be passed at some point in the next 20 years, and if does, I'm not sure that it's reversible.

New construction downtown is not particularly indicative of anything, I don't think.  Lakefront property around the Gold Coast, Near North Side, etc., is always going to be desirable.  Even in downtown Detroit you still have new development downtown and expensive condos going up, etc.  That's not really where you want to look for indicators of larger trends.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 14, 2019, 04:43:48 am
One other thing that's almost certain to happen is MS will flip by the 2040s, maybe earlier.  This has mainly to do with demographic change, which I won't go into right now since NC Yankee has already posted a lot of good stuff on this in another thread (which I'm too lazy to find at the moment).  I haven't done the math yet, but it's possible some other Deep South states will see the same dynamic, such as LA.

Mississippi was one of several states featured in a post by Adam Griffin in late 2016 which tracked the margin difference between the youngest voting demographic and the oldest demographic based off 2014 exit poll data.

You have to couple that with a realization that the Deep South's Republican lean is built off massive margins with Whites to offset the minority population's voting 95% Democratic. Unfortunately, the media stopped doing exit polling for every state and so the latest data we have to go on is 2012, but in that election in Mississippi the following results happened:

Whites 59%   Romney 89% Obama 11%
Blacks 36%    Obama 97%  Romney 2%

Whites in Mississippi vote more Republican than any other state in the country, more so than Alabama. Now in 2016, the black vote was down so that gave the illusion of everything being fine and Trump returned things to normal. The problem with this is that these Democratic voters didn't just vanish, they didn't turn out. Trump's voters on the other hand...

The key thing you realize is that Republican Support in the South is based not just on white support, but white boomer support. The thing that stands out from the Griffin post is the massive differential between older and younger voters. A good bit of this is diversification, but it is also generational change among white voters.

Most of the states that Democrats are going to gain in the sunbelt are those with higher educational attainment/greater secularization among whites, thus curbing white GOP margins and allowing strong Democratic support from growing minority communities to flip these states. Among these would be GA, TX and AZ, and also possibly Florida, SC and NC.  

The other states with less diversity and lower educational obtainment, Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas and Louisiana should hold up for the GOP for a good while unless some massive shift occurs.

Mississippi is the oddball because in terms of educational attainment it is clearly in the latter category, but the Democrats have a much higher floor there (assuming it turns out) than most other states with similar benchmarks. The state often gives the illusion of being more Republican than it actually is, but there is a vote out there that is about 43%-45% Democratic if you can motivate to turn out, which Obama did and Clinton did not. Republicans meanwhile peaked in 2008 and have lost votes in every election since. Mississippi, in spite of being so much better for Trump than Romney was a state where Trump actually got less votes than Romney did. I think it is fairly hard to argue that anyone is going to be better at turning out Mississippi White's than Trump. These voters aren't people not turning out, they are dying off.

Republicans are top heavy with Boomer whites (and Silents in MS's case) in every sunbelt state and while it is likely to presume that Mississippi whites will remain heavily Republican and probably even the most Republican in the nation, there is every reason to think that the number will ease downward slowly over the next few cycles, 85%, 82% etc.

In 2012, Romney won voters age 65 and up by a 78%-22% margin (similar to overall margin Goldwater got when basically only Whites could vote just throwing that out there). He won 45-64 55%-44% and 30-44 55%-44%. But Obama won the youngest voters: 55%-43%. Those same voters that were 65 and up in 2012 are now 72 and up in a state with some of the worst health scores and highest smoking rates. By 2040, they will be 93 and up, while the youngest voting demographic will have become the state's largest. Without the senior vote, Romney's margin drops to just ~3%

At Obama turnout levels a funny thing happens when the GOP gets below 80% with Whites:
59*79 + 36*3 = 47.69% + 5*.25 = 48.94%
59*21 + 36*97 = 47.32% + 5*.75 = 51.07%

It flips!!!

That still makes them the most Republican group of White Votes in the country. Interesting thing in the above scenario is that it is the Hispanic vote that gives the Democrats that final push over the GOP and over 50%.

So yea, post Trump, Mississippi will probably trend Democrat in every subsequent cycle until it flips probably by 2032.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: AN63093 on August 14, 2019, 11:26:05 am
Superb post, NC Yankee.

Anyways (to tie this back to the thread topic), I think MB's map above serves as a generally good baseline/template to work off of, and then some minor changes can be made here and there.

One big one is what ends up happening in the Deep South, which you covered in great detail above and I don't have much to add except to say, once again, excellent analysis.

Another one is what the next few decades look like for Chicagoland, which I went into above, probably in more detail than anyone cares to read. ;)

One last one I mentioned, which I won't get into too deep right now, is that I don't know that NJ is going to follow the trend in New England.. and I have several reasons for that, but the main one is that I think NJ is actually poised to become a high growth state, particularly from more diverse millennial families that are leaving the city.  The millennials -> inner city trend is beginning to reverse back to suburbanization (many millennials will refuse to believe this, of course, but people are already writing about this and the data is out there), and NJ is pretty well positioned to benefit from it.  It had lackluster growth over the past ~40 years in many areas (or even a decline) due to- first, general decline in the Northeast, then second, retirees fleeing the area (mostly to FL) and then third, millennials leaving the suburbs for city living in the early 00s.  There are plenty of signs this is already beginning to reverse if you look at Union County, Essex County, etc.

So, interestingly, I think the map of the future may be something that we've never really seen in US history, although it would bear some resemblance to some of the maps of the late 1800s (obviously the coalitions would be very different).  I suspect the West Coast through the Southwest to TX will be the Dems strongest area from about the mid-21st century on.  The GOP's strongest area will be the plains and Midwest, much like it was throughout US history, with the caveat that we have to see what happens in the Chicago area.  The biggest battlegrounds will be the South and New England, with both parties having strength in different states in each- for the Dems, portions of the Deep South and Atlanta.. for the GOP, the interior South and some coastal areas (the Carolinas particularly).  The Dems will continue to be strong in MA and essentially the entire Mid-Atlantic (from VA/MD, up through NJ/NY, which will be another Dem "core" area), where the rest of New England will be either lean R or be strong R (e.g., ME).  

The map below is pretty close to what I posted a couple years ago in this thread (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=271306.msg5799856#msg5799856), which is still generally where I think things are headed.  The only updates I've made to it are: a) I'm no longer sold on IL being D due to Chicago's decline and b) after doing some more demographic research, I think more Deep South states will have to be D.


()


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Wherever you want to go, you can't go there! on August 14, 2019, 12:20:40 pm
Superb post, NC Yankee.

Anyways (to tie this back to the thread topic), I think MB's map above serves as a generally good baseline/template to work off of, and then some minor changes can be made here and there.

One big one is what ends up happening in the Deep South, which you covered in great detail above and I don't have much to add except to say, once again, excellent analysis.

Another one is what the next few decades look like for Chicagoland, which I went into above, probably in more detail than anyone cares to read. ;)

One last one I mentioned, which I won't get into too deep right now, is that I don't know that NJ is going to follow the trend in New England.. and I have several reasons for that, but the main one is that I think NJ is actually poised to become a high growth state, particularly from more diverse millennial families that are leaving the city.  The millennials -> inner city trend is beginning to reverse back to suburbanization (many millennials will refuse to believe this, of course, but people are already writing about this and the data is out there), and NJ is pretty well positioned to benefit from it.  It had lackluster growth over the past ~40 years in many areas (or even a decline) due to- first, general decline in the Northeast, then second, retirees fleeing the area (mostly to FL) and then third, millennials leaving the suburbs for city living in the early 00s.  There are plenty of signs this is already beginning to reverse if you look at Union County, Essex County, etc.

So, interestingly, I think the map of the future may be something that we've never really seen in US history, although it would bear some resemblance to some of the maps of the late 1800s (obviously the coalitions would be very different).  I suspect the West Coast through the Southwest to TX will be the Dems strongest area from about the mid-21st century on.  The GOP's strongest area will be the plains and Midwest, much like it was throughout US history, with the caveat that we have to see what happens in the Chicago area.  The biggest battlegrounds will be the South and New England, with both parties having strength in different states in each- for the Dems, portions of the Deep South and Atlanta.. for the GOP, the interior South and some coastal areas (the Carolinas particularly).  The Dems will continue to be strong in MA and essentially the entire Mid-Atlantic (from VA/MD, up through NJ/NY, which will be another Dem "core" area), where the rest of New England will be either lean R or be strong R (e.g., ME).  

The map below is pretty close to what I posted a couple years ago in this thread (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=271306.msg5799856#msg5799856), which is still generally where I think things are headed.  The only updates I've made to it are: a) I'm no longer sold on IL being D due to Chicago's decline and b) after doing some more demographic research, I think more Deep South states will have to be D.


()

I still don't think Vermont will flip because its already very rural. I'm not 100% sold on Connecticut but think its a possibility. Rhode Island might be an easier thing but still, I'll believe when I see it. I can see New England becoming like the Sun Belt is now by maybe the end of the next Democratic administration.


https://www.270towin.com/maps/N8rnW
This is what I have. Maybe as there are two or three more reapportionments, we won't need to handicap by giving rural Eastern and Southern NE to the Rs.

Strongest D map 2035-2060
https://www.270towin.com/maps/dQ6wn
https://www.270towin.com/maps/xLEm7 (closest D win in generations)


Strongest R map 2035-2060
https://www.270towin.com/maps/3oQWn (if they can start winning convincing NPV margins)
https://www.270towin.com/maps/Dbjd3 (more likely)


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: AN63093 on August 14, 2019, 02:25:28 pm
ESL- I like those maps; can't say I disagree with a whole lot.  Just a few things- I think even in a strong D victory, I wonder if MI will be winnable in 20 years.  I think it just depends on what happens in the Detroit area and if it continues to lose population.. if so, it's not inconceivable that it starts voting a lot more like IA or OH.  SC is another one- it'll be interesting to see what happens there because SC is one of the places where you actually see a high conservative influx (i.e., the Greenville area, which is growing at >10% and in large part is trending R).

Likewise, I do like your R win scenarios, though I have my little quibbles here and there (e.g., GA in 20 years could be one of the last states to vote R, even in a landslide situation.. I could see it staying D before even states like OR).  And I cannot conceive of a scenario like your second link where NC flips D before GA (again, this is in the future, not today).

As far as VT goes, well, you have to keep in mind that my map is LONG term.. i.e., I'm not making these predictions for 2020, or 2024, or even 2028.  I'm considering what may be happening once the baby boomer generation has almost ceased to exist and millennials are mostly in middle age, gen X is in retirement etc.

The reason why I think VT will flip (although it will still be close for a long time and probably won't be solid R in my lifetime) is simple- it has almost nothing in common with any of the demographics that are forming the Dems' core/future base.  VT is mostly older, rural, and just barely growing- we're talking like 0.1% (it is nearly last in the US).  It is the second whitest state in the country after ME (over 90%).  It is the third oldest (after ME and NH).  Honestly, if I went up to a random person and just told them to guess the state based on demographics without saying the name, you'd probably get answers like WV or ND or something.. no one would think, oh wait, that's VT.

The reason a lot of millennials will have trouble fathoming this, is because many of them grew up in the 90s and started voting (or at least "paying attention" to politics) in the 00s or Bush years.  So they associate the GOP with what were some of the strongest elements in the party at the time, which includes, e.g., Southern Evangelicals.  Given that, some have difficulty seeing how a state like VT would ever vote for the party of Southern Baptists etc., without stopping to wonder what would happen if the GOP was no longer associated with either Baptists or the South, and in fact, if it was now the Democrats who were winning most of the South.  That is a scenario that a lot of current millennials will be cognitively incapable of envisioning, even though it is actually underway- TX, GA, NC- all trending D.  Meanwhile VT (every county but 1), RI, NH, CT, ME- all trending R.  

And of course, people being born now and that will vote in 2040 will have none of the associations that millennials currently have with the GOP.  Something that is difficult to accept but is nonetheless true (and it's forgivable, people have a tendency to believe everything revolves around their own experiences, but in fact, the world does move on).  We see this already happening with the GOP, having nominated its least religious candidate since I can remember, and where the Religious Right had minimal (basically no) impact on the primary or general election, and is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the base.

Remember- maps change.  In 20 years, there will be states voting R that no one today is guessing.  20 years ago, KY, WV, AR, TN- all D states.  Maps that purport to predict the future but don't flip enough states are bad maps.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Wherever you want to go, you can't go there! on August 14, 2019, 03:12:30 pm
ESL- I like those maps; can't say I disagree with a whole lot.  Just a few things- I think even in a strong D victory, I wonder if MI will be winnable in 20 years.  I think it just depends on what happens in the Detroit area and if it continues to lose population.. if so, it's not inconceivable that it starts voting a lot more like IA or OH.  SC is another one- it'll be interesting to see what happens there because SC is one of the places where you actually see a high conservative influx (i.e., the Greenville area, which is growing at >10% and in large part is trending R).

Likewise, I do like your R win scenarios, though I have my little quibbles here and there (e.g., GA in 20 years could be one of the last states to vote R, even in a landslide situation.. I could see it staying D before even states like OR).  And I cannot conceive of a scenario like your second link where NC flips D before GA (again, this is in the future, not today).

As far as VT goes, well, you have to keep in mind that my map is LONG term.. i.e., I'm not making these predictions for 2020, or 2024, or even 2028.  I'm considering what may be happening once the baby boomer generation has almost ceased to exist and millennials are mostly in middle age, gen X is in retirement etc.

The reason why I think VT will flip (although it will still be close for a long time and probably won't be solid R in my lifetime) is simple- it has almost nothing in common with any of the demographics that are forming the Dems' core/future base.  VT is mostly older, rural, and just barely growing- we're talking like 0.1% (it is nearly last in the US).  It is the second whitest state in the country after ME (over 90%).  It is the third oldest (after ME and NH).  Honestly, if I went up to a random person and just told them to guess the state based on demographics without saying the name, you'd probably get answers like WV or ND or something.. no one would think, oh wait, that's VT.

The reason a lot of millennials will have trouble fathoming this, is because many of them grew up in the 90s and started voting (or at least "paying attention" to politics) in the 00s or Bush years.  So they associate the GOP with what were some of the strongest elements in the party at the time, which includes, e.g., Southern Evangelicals.  Given that, some have difficulty seeing how a state like VT would ever vote for the party of Southern Baptists etc., without stopping to wonder what would happen if the GOP was no longer associated with either Baptists or the South, and in fact, if it was now the Democrats who were winning most of the South.  That is a scenario that a lot of current millennials will be cognitively incapable of envisioning, even though it is actually underway- TX, GA, NC- all trending D.  Meanwhile VT (every county but 1), RI, NH, CT, ME- all trending R.  

And of course, people being born now and that will vote in 2040 will have none of the associations that millennials currently have with the GOP.  Something that is difficult to accept but is nonetheless true (and it's forgivable, people have a tendency to believe everything revolves around their own experiences, but in fact, the world does move on).  We see this already happening with the GOP, having nominated its least religious candidate since I can remember, and where the Religious Right had minimal (basically no) impact on the primary or general election, and is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the base.

Remember- maps change.  In 20 years, there will be states voting R that no one today is guessing.  20 years ago, KY, WV, AR, TN- all D states.  Maps that purport to predict the future but don't flip enough states are bad maps.

So the big questions are-

Will New England stay New England or will it be the new "Sun Belt" (going from being the base of its party to simply comprising its "fire wall"), "Great Lakes" (going from being reliable to one party to completely up in the air), or "Appalachia" (go from being the base of one party to being the base for the other)?

Will the Republicans be able to defend the rest of their "sunbelt firewall"(AZ,FL,TX,GA,NC), even as a couple of states in it are now just out of reach(CO,NM,NV,VA)?

Will the Rust Belt be able to hold on enough of its industries and large to remain a distinct battleground or will it simply become a rural body shop the same way the great planes or Appalachia has become? Pretty much reliant on artificially cheap labor and other costs of business?  Where the last shipping ports, banks, and factories are replaced by geriatric facilities, fulfillment centers and call centers? 



Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Anarcho-Statism on August 14, 2019, 10:10:13 pm
The reason a lot of millennials will have trouble fathoming this, is because many of them grew up in the 90s and started voting (or at least "paying attention" to politics) in the 00s or Bush years.  So they associate the GOP with what were some of the strongest elements in the party at the time, which includes, e.g., Southern Evangelicals.  Given that, some have difficulty seeing how a state like VT would ever vote for the party of Southern Baptists etc., without stopping to wonder what would happen if the GOP was no longer associated with either Baptists or the South, and in fact, if it was now the Democrats who were winning most of the South.  That is a scenario that a lot of current millennials will be cognitively incapable of envisioning, even though it is actually underway- TX, GA, NC- all trending D.  Meanwhile VT (every county but 1), RI, NH, CT, ME- all trending R.  

And of course, people being born now and that will vote in 2040 will have none of the associations that millennials currently have with the GOP.  Something that is difficult to accept but is nonetheless true (and it's forgivable, people have a tendency to believe everything revolves around their own experiences, but in fact, the world does move on).  We see this already happening with the GOP, having nominated its least religious candidate since I can remember, and where the Religious Right had minimal (basically no) impact on the primary or general election, and is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the base.

Remember- maps change.  In 20 years, there will be states voting R that no one today is guessing.  20 years ago, KY, WV, AR, TN- all D states.  Maps that purport to predict the future but don't flip enough states are bad maps.

Call me crazy, I think this reasoning could be applied to the northwest, too. If we have a populist GOP, Oregon would go first. If the GOP shifts back to its late 19th century character- coalition built on the well-to-do neoliberals fleeing more conservative minorities and/or progressives in the Democratic Party- this could actually happen to Washington first.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: darklordoftech on August 14, 2019, 10:42:48 pm
why be weak and accept blue GA?  Keep it red, no matter what.  A more favorable judiciary could help corrective measures be ruled constitutional.
If you were around in 1952, you’d be advocating “corrective measures” in order to bring back isolationism, Smoot-Hawley, and alcohol prohibition.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: 🌐 on August 14, 2019, 10:44:08 pm
The reason a lot of millennials will have trouble fathoming this, is because many of them grew up in the 90s and started voting (or at least "paying attention" to politics) in the 00s or Bush years.  So they associate the GOP with what were some of the strongest elements in the party at the time, which includes, e.g., Southern Evangelicals.  Given that, some have difficulty seeing how a state like VT would ever vote for the party of Southern Baptists etc., without stopping to wonder what would happen if the GOP was no longer associated with either Baptists or the South, and in fact, if it was now the Democrats who were winning most of the South.  That is a scenario that a lot of current millennials will be cognitively incapable of envisioning, even though it is actually underway- TX, GA, NC- all trending D.  Meanwhile VT (every county but 1), RI, NH, CT, ME- all trending R.  

And of course, people being born now and that will vote in 2040 will have none of the associations that millennials currently have with the GOP.  Something that is difficult to accept but is nonetheless true (and it's forgivable, people have a tendency to believe everything revolves around their own experiences, but in fact, the world does move on).  We see this already happening with the GOP, having nominated its least religious candidate since I can remember, and where the Religious Right had minimal (basically no) impact on the primary or general election, and is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the base.

Remember- maps change.  In 20 years, there will be states voting R that no one today is guessing.  20 years ago, KY, WV, AR, TN- all D states.  Maps that purport to predict the future but don't flip enough states are bad maps.

Call me crazy, I think this reasoning could be applied to the northwest, too. If we have a populist GOP, Oregon would go first. If the GOP shifts back to its late 19th century character- coalition built on the well-to-do neoliberals fleeing more conservative minorities and/or progressives in the Democratic Party- this could actually happen to Washington first.
Hell no. A couple of hippies doesn't change the fact that Oregon is (and is only getting moreso) metropolitain and international. Also, I don't get how Connecticut is supposed to go Republican. I think the corridor from Hartford to New Haven to Fairfield County will keep it blue for a long time.

In regards to Chicago population trends, it's pretty clear it isn't following the rest of the rustbelt. The Tribune (I think) did a piece on it recently, and basically every single neighborhood in the city with the exception of the Far South Side is growing--to a pretty rapid extent. The Far South Side is absolutely bleeding, but it's bottomed out and will eventually gentrify. Meanwhile, the rest of the city is booming and is poised to follow a New Yorkesque trend over the next decade which will easily cancel out the shrinking on the Far South Side. Chicago is pretty clearly a cosmopolitain agglomeration which is going to have a lot of relevance in the 21st century, and it's economic base, construction, and relevance to the global economy clearly shows signs of it having more in common with coastal metropolises than the surrounding Rust Belt.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Old School Republican on August 14, 2019, 10:48:55 pm
The reason a lot of millennials will have trouble fathoming this, is because many of them grew up in the 90s and started voting (or at least "paying attention" to politics) in the 00s or Bush years.  So they associate the GOP with what were some of the strongest elements in the party at the time, which includes, e.g., Southern Evangelicals.  Given that, some have difficulty seeing how a state like VT would ever vote for the party of Southern Baptists etc., without stopping to wonder what would happen if the GOP was no longer associated with either Baptists or the South, and in fact, if it was now the Democrats who were winning most of the South.  That is a scenario that a lot of current millennials will be cognitively incapable of envisioning, even though it is actually underway- TX, GA, NC- all trending D.  Meanwhile VT (every county but 1), RI, NH, CT, ME- all trending R.  

And of course, people being born now and that will vote in 2040 will have none of the associations that millennials currently have with the GOP.  Something that is difficult to accept but is nonetheless true (and it's forgivable, people have a tendency to believe everything revolves around their own experiences, but in fact, the world does move on).  We see this already happening with the GOP, having nominated its least religious candidate since I can remember, and where the Religious Right had minimal (basically no) impact on the primary or general election, and is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the base.

Remember- maps change.  In 20 years, there will be states voting R that no one today is guessing.  20 years ago, KY, WV, AR, TN- all D states.  Maps that purport to predict the future but don't flip enough states are bad maps.

Call me crazy, I think this reasoning could be applied to the northwest, too. If we have a populist GOP, Oregon would go first. If the GOP shifts back to its late 19th century character- coalition built on the well-to-do neoliberals fleeing more conservative minorities and/or progressives in the Democratic Party- this could actually happen to Washington first.
Hell no. A couple of hippies doesn't change the fact that Oregon is (and is only getting moreso) metropolitain and international. Also, I don't get how Connecticut is supposed to go Republican. I think the corridor from Hartford to New Haven to Fairfield County will keep it blue for a long time.

In regards to Chicago population trends, it's pretty clear it isn't following the rest of the rustbelt. The Tribune (I think) did a piece on it recently, and basically every single neighborhood in the city with the exception of the Far South Side is growing--to a pretty rapid extent. The Far South Side is absolutely bleeding, but it's bottomed out and will eventually gentrify. Meanwhile, the rest of the city is booming and is poised to follow a New Yorkesque trend over the next decade which will easily cancel out the shrinking on the Far South Side. Chicago is pretty clearly a cosmopolitain agglomeration which is going to have a lot of relevance in the 21st century, and it's economic base, construction, and relevance to the global economy clearly shows signs of it having more in common with coastal metropolises than the surrounding Rust Belt.


Current trends won’t last beyond 2028 at the latest . By the 2030s many of the trends what happen then will be unrecognizable to us today


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Cory Booker on August 14, 2019, 11:17:20 pm
Trump did everything to secure the blue wall wont crack, I dont know what old school Republican mean, Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee and Los Angeles arent gonna leave the state. Those states are union based states. We will see what happens when Trump leaves office, but future isnt good for GOP post Trump


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Anarcho-Statism on August 14, 2019, 11:19:16 pm
Current trends won’t last beyond 2028 at the latest . By the 2030s many of the trends what happen then will be unrecognizable to us today

Wise! Who's to say the Republicans don't reabsorb free trade and surge in the gentrified cities while still losing areas with poor minorities? Or, that coalitions rise based on automation? Or a huge credit crunch-based depression? Or over intervention in the complicated ideological environment of a collapsed post-Putin Russia? Maybe new technology or Democratic legislation totally kills coal, and big tech moves in to totally renovate West Virginia. Maybe Silicon Valley rusts away and California becomes susceptible to populism. Maybe an OPEC embargo causes America to go completely self-reliant on oil, causing North Dakota to become a cosmopolitan boomtown.

To those who laugh at the outlandish: danger of extrapolation.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Idaho Conservative on August 14, 2019, 11:51:55 pm
why be weak and accept blue GA?  Keep it red, no matter what.  A more favorable judiciary could help corrective measures be ruled constitutional.
If you were around in 1952, you’d be advocating “corrective measures” in order to bring back isolationism, Smoot-Hawley, and alcohol prohibition.
I'm a non interventionist, economic nationalist (we should punish outsourcing), but fine with alcohol.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: AN63093 on August 15, 2019, 12:42:51 pm
The reason a lot of millennials will have trouble fathoming this, is because many of them grew up in the 90s and started voting (or at least "paying attention" to politics) in the 00s or Bush years.  So they associate the GOP with what were some of the strongest elements in the party at the time, which includes, e.g., Southern Evangelicals.  Given that, some have difficulty seeing how a state like VT would ever vote for the party of Southern Baptists etc., without stopping to wonder what would happen if the GOP was no longer associated with either Baptists or the South, and in fact, if it was now the Democrats who were winning most of the South.  That is a scenario that a lot of current millennials will be cognitively incapable of envisioning, even though it is actually underway- TX, GA, NC- all trending D.  Meanwhile VT (every county but 1), RI, NH, CT, ME- all trending R.  

And of course, people being born now and that will vote in 2040 will have none of the associations that millennials currently have with the GOP.  Something that is difficult to accept but is nonetheless true (and it's forgivable, people have a tendency to believe everything revolves around their own experiences, but in fact, the world does move on).  We see this already happening with the GOP, having nominated its least religious candidate since I can remember, and where the Religious Right had minimal (basically no) impact on the primary or general election, and is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the base.

Remember- maps change.  In 20 years, there will be states voting R that no one today is guessing.  20 years ago, KY, WV, AR, TN- all D states.  Maps that purport to predict the future but don't flip enough states are bad maps.

Call me crazy, I think this reasoning could be applied to the northwest, too. If we have a populist GOP, Oregon would go first. If the GOP shifts back to its late 19th century character- coalition built on the well-to-do neoliberals fleeing more conservative minorities and/or progressives in the Democratic Party- this could actually happen to Washington first.

I thought about that as well, and I go back and forth on it.  The reason why I think the pacific NW will be distinct is because even though some areas share characteristics of places like New England, there are two large metro areas (in Portland and Seattle) that are two of the top MSAs in the US in growth (particularly Seattle, which is hitting >15%) and this growth consists of mostly demographics that are D leaning to strong D (such as white progressives, etc.).  There isn't a single metro area in the Northeast that shares those characteristics, except to some extent Boston (which is why I think MA will stay D even if New England largely does not).


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: AN63093 on August 15, 2019, 01:10:30 pm
The reason a lot of millennials will have trouble fathoming this, is because many of them grew up in the 90s and started voting (or at least "paying attention" to politics) in the 00s or Bush years.  So they associate the GOP with what were some of the strongest elements in the party at the time, which includes, e.g., Southern Evangelicals.  Given that, some have difficulty seeing how a state like VT would ever vote for the party of Southern Baptists etc., without stopping to wonder what would happen if the GOP was no longer associated with either Baptists or the South, and in fact, if it was now the Democrats who were winning most of the South.  That is a scenario that a lot of current millennials will be cognitively incapable of envisioning, even though it is actually underway- TX, GA, NC- all trending D.  Meanwhile VT (every county but 1), RI, NH, CT, ME- all trending R.  

And of course, people being born now and that will vote in 2040 will have none of the associations that millennials currently have with the GOP.  Something that is difficult to accept but is nonetheless true (and it's forgivable, people have a tendency to believe everything revolves around their own experiences, but in fact, the world does move on).  We see this already happening with the GOP, having nominated its least religious candidate since I can remember, and where the Religious Right had minimal (basically no) impact on the primary or general election, and is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the base.

Remember- maps change.  In 20 years, there will be states voting R that no one today is guessing.  20 years ago, KY, WV, AR, TN- all D states.  Maps that purport to predict the future but don't flip enough states are bad maps.

Call me crazy, I think this reasoning could be applied to the northwest, too. If we have a populist GOP, Oregon would go first. If the GOP shifts back to its late 19th century character- coalition built on the well-to-do neoliberals fleeing more conservative minorities and/or progressives in the Democratic Party- this could actually happen to Washington first.
Hell no. A couple of hippies doesn't change the fact that Oregon is (and is only getting moreso) metropolitain and international. Also, I don't get how Connecticut is supposed to go Republican. I think the corridor from Hartford to New Haven to Fairfield County will keep it blue for a long time.

In regards to Chicago population trends, it's pretty clear it isn't following the rest of the rustbelt. The Tribune (I think) did a piece on it recently, and basically every single neighborhood in the city with the exception of the Far South Side is growing--to a pretty rapid extent. The Far South Side is absolutely bleeding, but it's bottomed out and will eventually gentrify. Meanwhile, the rest of the city is booming and is poised to follow a New Yorkesque trend over the next decade which will easily cancel out the shrinking on the Far South Side. Chicago is pretty clearly a cosmopolitain agglomeration which is going to have a lot of relevance in the 21st century, and it's economic base, construction, and relevance to the global economy clearly shows signs of it having more in common with coastal metropolises than the surrounding Rust Belt.

Do you have a link for this article?  If you are describing it accurately, then I question the methodology, since every figure I listed above indicates that Chicago is not about to enter a period of high growth.  If so, perhaps you can enlighten me as to why every county in the MSA is shrinking or stagnant, including Lake County, DuPage etc., (so neither the inner city, nor the suburbs- regardless of socioeconomic level, are growing), and why the Chicago MSA is only hitting 0.4% growth (contrast to, say, Houston, which is at an eye-popping 18%).  I think it's pretty obvious which one of these is going to end up having more relevance in the 21st century.  In fact, the Chicago MSA is the slowest growing metro in the entire top 20, one of the slowest in the top 50 even.. only 4 others are slower- Pittsburgh (shrinking at 1.34%), Buffalo (shrinking at 0.47%), Hartford (shrinking at 0.5%) and Cleveland (shrinking at 0.97%).

Your post has a lot of irrelevant fluff in it (like, e.g., Chicago will continue to be a "cosmopolitain agglomeration".. um, I wasn't arguing that Chicago won't be cosmopolitan?... also you spelled cosmopolitan wrong).  If we're attempting to project demographic trends of an urban area, I think I'm going to go ahead and stick with the data and numbers over your pontificating.  But if you actually have any numbers to present, I'd be happy to re-assess my position.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: 🌐 on August 15, 2019, 11:26:10 pm
The reason a lot of millennials will have trouble fathoming this, is because many of them grew up in the 90s and started voting (or at least "paying attention" to politics) in the 00s or Bush years.  So they associate the GOP with what were some of the strongest elements in the party at the time, which includes, e.g., Southern Evangelicals.  Given that, some have difficulty seeing how a state like VT would ever vote for the party of Southern Baptists etc., without stopping to wonder what would happen if the GOP was no longer associated with either Baptists or the South, and in fact, if it was now the Democrats who were winning most of the South.  That is a scenario that a lot of current millennials will be cognitively incapable of envisioning, even though it is actually underway- TX, GA, NC- all trending D.  Meanwhile VT (every county but 1), RI, NH, CT, ME- all trending R.  

And of course, people being born now and that will vote in 2040 will have none of the associations that millennials currently have with the GOP.  Something that is difficult to accept but is nonetheless true (and it's forgivable, people have a tendency to believe everything revolves around their own experiences, but in fact, the world does move on).  We see this already happening with the GOP, having nominated its least religious candidate since I can remember, and where the Religious Right had minimal (basically no) impact on the primary or general election, and is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the base.

Remember- maps change.  In 20 years, there will be states voting R that no one today is guessing.  20 years ago, KY, WV, AR, TN- all D states.  Maps that purport to predict the future but don't flip enough states are bad maps.

Call me crazy, I think this reasoning could be applied to the northwest, too. If we have a populist GOP, Oregon would go first. If the GOP shifts back to its late 19th century character- coalition built on the well-to-do neoliberals fleeing more conservative minorities and/or progressives in the Democratic Party- this could actually happen to Washington first.
Hell no. A couple of hippies doesn't change the fact that Oregon is (and is only getting moreso) metropolitain and international. Also, I don't get how Connecticut is supposed to go Republican. I think the corridor from Hartford to New Haven to Fairfield County will keep it blue for a long time.

In regards to Chicago population trends, it's pretty clear it isn't following the rest of the rustbelt. The Tribune (I think) did a piece on it recently, and basically every single neighborhood in the city with the exception of the Far South Side is growing--to a pretty rapid extent. The Far South Side is absolutely bleeding, but it's bottomed out and will eventually gentrify. Meanwhile, the rest of the city is booming and is poised to follow a New Yorkesque trend over the next decade which will easily cancel out the shrinking on the Far South Side. Chicago is pretty clearly a cosmopolitain agglomeration which is going to have a lot of relevance in the 21st century, and it's economic base, construction, and relevance to the global economy clearly shows signs of it having more in common with coastal metropolises than the surrounding Rust Belt.

Do you have a link for this article?  If you are describing it accurately, then I question the methodology, since every figure I listed above indicates that Chicago is not about to enter a period of high growth.  If so, perhaps you can enlighten me as to why every county in the MSA is shrinking or stagnant, including Lake County, DuPage etc., (so neither the inner city, nor the suburbs- regardless of socioeconomic level, are growing), and why the Chicago MSA is only hitting 0.4% growth (contrast to, say, Houston, which is at an eye-popping 18%).  I think it's pretty obvious which one of these is going to end up having more relevance in the 21st century.  In fact, the Chicago MSA is the slowest growing metro in the entire top 20, one of the slowest in the top 50 even.. only 4 others are slower- Pittsburgh (shrinking at 1.34%), Buffalo (shrinking at 0.47%), Hartford (shrinking at 0.5%) and Cleveland (shrinking at 0.97%).

Your post has a lot of irrelevant fluff in it (like, e.g., Chicago will continue to be a "cosmopolitain agglomeration".. um, I wasn't arguing that Chicago won't be cosmopolitan?... also you spelled cosmopolitan wrong).  If we're attempting to project demographic trends of an urban area, I think I'm going to go ahead and stick with the data and numbers over your pontificating.  But if you actually have any numbers to present, I'd be happy to re-assess my position.
Screw my awful phone. Anyway, this is the article: https://www.google.com/amp/s/chicago.suntimes.com/platform/amp/columnists/2019/7/28/8928935/chicago-seven-cities-neighborhoods-ed-zotti-city-crossroads
Basically, this data puts Chicago in the same place as New York was in the '90s and early '00s. The city was starting to clean up, massive new development was starting for an influx of yuppies, corporations were relocating from the suburbs back to Manhattan, and the wealth base of the city was swelling but it wasn't reflected in the population growth rates yet because black neighborhoods were still emptying out and family sizes were plummeting. The same trends are at play in Chicago now, and the reason I say it's cosmopolitan and globally in a way other cities like St Louis or Cleveland aren't is grounded in real data. The corporate base is too strong to move away, college graduates are swarming into the city, the people moving in are richer than the ones moving out, construction in the Loop is at an unprecedented high and formerly declining neighborhoods are growing again. All the signs of growth are coming into place.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 16, 2019, 02:19:16 am
If the Republicans continue on its Northern trajectory, it will be via hinging around non-college whites, so the areas with the highest concentrations of non-college whites will flip first or harden if they already have. These would become the new "Base states" and then you have to look and find what demographics are easiest to flip to get you a majority either in a particular state or in the nation as whole.

Practically speaking we are already there since Trump won 66% with non-college whites, while losing college educated whites. Trump cobbled together a majority (of the EC) by minimizing the bleeding with the 2000s GOP base, sunbelt-evangelical suburbs, but if those voters are no longer viable paths (ie, they are dead or being outvoted by minority-millennial coalitions), you have to find alternative routes.

The number one rule is that whoever they go for, it will be the group that requires the party to change the least and that also will factor in who is the next Democratic President and what their focus is.

The easiest group to augment non-college whites would be Midwest suburban voters, particularly those suburbs that are lacking in diversity. This secures that region (save Illinois). These suburbs lack the pressures (see my post above about top heaviness with Boomer whites to offset minority margins) that are long term threatening the GOP in Texas and Georgia and would be more likely to bounce back afterwards. The GOP didn't lose any suburban House seats in Wisconsin or Ohio in 2018 (and yes gerrys were a factor of course), but even looking at the county results for Governor: DeWine did better than Trump in Delaware County, Walker did better in Wow, and Rauner did better in the collar counties. By contrast Kemp did worse than Trump in Cobb and Gwinnett. McSally did worse in Maricopa and Cruz did worse in Tarrant.

Granted these were Governor and Senate races, but we are seeing a level of GOP resilience in that area even with Trump as President that could translate into better performances post Trump, which leaves the GOP as a more Rust belt/Midwest centric party over the course of the next decade. This would invariably translate into candidates who by necessity of survival have to successfully combine Trump level support with non-college whites, and decent college white support in the suburbs. This would invariably translate into better performances over time in Illinois (~40s) and after a couple of cycles being shut out trying to go the GA/TX route (call it the sunbelt blue wall in a future scenario), throwing some money into Illinois begins to look appealing. Throw in some third party vote splitting and a narrow 48%-46% win in the 2030's isn't unreasonable.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Old School Republican on August 16, 2019, 02:45:41 am
If the Republicans continue on its Northern trajectory, it will be via hinging around non-college whites, so the areas with the highest concentrations of non-college whites will flip first or harden if they already have. These would become the new "Base states" and then you have to look and find what demographics are easiest to flip to get you a majority either in a particular state or in the nation as whole.

Practically speaking we are already there since Trump won 66% with non-college whites, while losing college educated whites. Trump cobbled together a majority (of the EC) by minimizing the bleeding with the 2000s GOP base, sunbelt-evangelical suburbs, but if those voters are no longer viable paths (ie, they are dead or being outvoted by minority-millennial coalitions), you have to find alternative routes.

The number one rule is that whoever they go for, it will be the group that requires the party to change the least and that also will factor in who is the next Democratic President and what their focus is.

The easiest group to augment non-college whites would be Midwest suburban voters, particularly those suburbs that are lacking in diversity. This secures that region (save Illinois). These suburbs lack the pressures (see my post above about top heaviness with Boomer whites to offset minority margins) that are long term threatening the GOP in Texas and Georgia and would be more likely to bounce back afterwards. The GOP didn't lose any suburban House seats in Wisconsin or Ohio in 2018 (and yes gerrys were a factor of course), but even looking at the county results for Governor: DeWine did better than Trump in Delaware County, Walker did better in Wow, and Rauner did better in the collar counties. By contrast Kemp did worse than Trump in Cobb and Gwinnett. McSally did worse in Maricopa and Cruz did worse in Tarrant.

Granted these were Governor and Senate races, but we are seeing a level of GOP resilience in that area even with Trump as President that could translate into better performances post Trump, which leaves the GOP as a more Rust belt/Midwest centric party over the course of the next decade. This would invariably translate into candidates who by necessity of survival have to successfully combine Trump level support with non-college whites, and decent college white support in the suburbs. This would invariably translate into better performances over time in Illinois (~40s) and after a couple of cycles being shut out trying to go the GA/TX route (call it the sunbelt blue wall in a future scenario), throwing some money into Illinois begins to look appealing. Throw in some third party vote splitting and a narrow 48%-46% win in the 2030's isn't unreasonable.

Problem is that wouldnt get GOP to 270 EV even with 2010s appropriations of electoral college votes.


()


GOP only get to 257 EV with this map and in future decades that number will decrease. The fact is you need on of CA, NY, or TX to win elections and with all 3 gone , the GOP will be locked out.

Dems can even counter IL on that map with NC and in future decades maybe even just MS as well .


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 16, 2019, 03:28:14 am
That's when you start investing in CT, NJ, DE, ILL and OR to try and shake something lose.




Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: I'm a Bernie Bro but let's unite behind Biden on August 16, 2019, 08:00:08 am
What the GOP needs to do is move to the European populist right and they'll win elections back again.

First post Trump victory

()

Assuming the re-alignmen led to modern liberal vs europopulist right split in 2040's/2050's

()

If split is moderate vs left wing populist more like this, which will improve GOP performances among minorities slowly (which could slow trends), while suburbanites could swing GOP quite fast.

()


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: I'm a Bernie Bro but let's unite behind Biden on August 16, 2019, 08:10:17 am
If the Republicans continue on its Northern trajectory, it will be via hinging around non-college whites, so the areas with the highest concentrations of non-college whites will flip first or harden if they already have. These would become the new "Base states" and then you have to look and find what demographics are easiest to flip to get you a majority either in a particular state or in the nation as whole.

Practically speaking we are already there since Trump won 66% with non-college whites, while losing college educated whites. Trump cobbled together a majority (of the EC) by minimizing the bleeding with the 2000s GOP base, sunbelt-evangelical suburbs, but if those voters are no longer viable paths (ie, they are dead or being outvoted by minority-millennial coalitions), you have to find alternative routes.

The number one rule is that whoever they go for, it will be the group that requires the party to change the least and that also will factor in who is the next Democratic President and what their focus is.

The easiest group to augment non-college whites would be Midwest suburban voters, particularly those suburbs that are lacking in diversity. This secures that region (save Illinois). These suburbs lack the pressures (see my post above about top heaviness with Boomer whites to offset minority margins) that are long term threatening the GOP in Texas and Georgia and would be more likely to bounce back afterwards. The GOP didn't lose any suburban House seats in Wisconsin or Ohio in 2018 (and yes gerrys were a factor of course), but even looking at the county results for Governor: DeWine did better than Trump in Delaware County, Walker did better in Wow, and Rauner did better in the collar counties. By contrast Kemp did worse than Trump in Cobb and Gwinnett. McSally did worse in Maricopa and Cruz did worse in Tarrant.

Granted these were Governor and Senate races, but we are seeing a level of GOP resilience in that area even with Trump as President that could translate into better performances post Trump, which leaves the GOP as a more Rust belt/Midwest centric party over the course of the next decade. This would invariably translate into candidates who by necessity of survival have to successfully combine Trump level support with non-college whites, and decent college white support in the suburbs. This would invariably translate into better performances over time in Illinois (~40s) and after a couple of cycles being shut out trying to go the GA/TX route (call it the sunbelt blue wall in a future scenario), throwing some money into Illinois begins to look appealing. Throw in some third party vote splitting and a narrow 48%-46% win in the 2030's isn't unreasonable.

Problem is that wouldnt get GOP to 270 EV even with 2010s appropriations of electoral college votes.


()


GOP only get to 257 EV with this map and in future decades that number will decrease. The fact is you need on of CA, NY, or TX to win elections and with all 3 gone , the GOP will be locked out.

Dems can even counter IL on that map with NC and in future decades maybe even just MS as well .

I think in the far future both NY and TX will/could be competitive. Upstate NY will swing dramatically republican, population decreases in rural NY and increases in NYC however, so i'd think it stays at least in the likely D column, but will get closer

TX has young suburbanites and hispanics. If the GOP wants to keep TX, they'll have to keep turnout low. Once TX is competitive, it will swing dramatically Democratic.

But maybe the GOP doesn't need any of those three states, even if GOP does very well among hispanics, i think TX will be lean / likely D

()

although maybe i just proved your point, because the EV's will be more in favour of the Dems...

But we will likely see a re-alignment. GOP must move to Euroright-wing populism or towards a right-wing liberal party. The post-Trump years will be hard, and i think the Dems might hold the presidency for a while, while downballot in the senate and house Republicans might do better. Some will be disaffected by the evolution of the GOP, unless it moves towards Europopulism. If it moves to Europopulism, we might see just like in Europe a stream from Labourites / soc dems towards the Europopulist party, who are now unlikely to vote GOP (exc. maybe Trump first term). If it moves towards a moderate right-wing conservative or a right-wing liberal party, it will slowly increase it's share among minorities and suburbanites over time and cancel current trends more, but it will depend on what the Democrats will become who will obviously be very socially liberal in the future.

But what is certain is that the GOP needs to change in order to stay competitive nationally and in TX.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: jimmie on August 18, 2019, 02:10:51 pm
The easiest group to augment non-college whites would be Midwest suburban voters, particularly those suburbs that are lacking in diversity. This secures that region (save Illinois). These suburbs lack the pressures (see my post above about top heaviness with Boomer whites to offset minority margins) that are long term threatening the GOP in Texas and Georgia and would be more likely to bounce back afterwards. The GOP didn't lose any suburban House seats in Wisconsin or Ohio in 2018 (and yes gerrys were a factor of course), but even looking at the county results for Governor: DeWine did better than Trump in Delaware County, Walker did better in Wow, and Rauner did better in the collar counties. By contrast Kemp did worse than Trump in Cobb and Gwinnett. McSally did worse in Maricopa and Cruz did worse in Tarrant.

Granted these were Governor and Senate races, but we are seeing a level of GOP resilience in that area even with Trump as President that could translate into better performances post Trump, which leaves the GOP as a more Rust belt/Midwest centric party over the course of the next decade. This would invariably translate into candidates who by necessity of survival have to successfully combine Trump level support with non-college whites, and decent college white support in the suburbs. This would invariably translate into better performances over time in Illinois (~40s) and after a couple of cycles being shut out trying to go the GA/TX route (call it the sunbelt blue wall in a future scenario), throwing some money into Illinois begins to look appealing. Throw in some third party vote splitting and a narrow 48%-46% win in the 2030's isn't unreasonable.

On paragraph one I have argued many times that with the exception of Lake County that the Illnois suburban collar ring will be tilting slightly Republican on local races. There is much more of a Chicago vs rest of state dynamic there. Contrast that to Cobb and Gwinnett Counties in Georgia which will almost certainly be likely to solid Democratic up and down the ballot and with less sitgma towards Atlanta than Chicago.

But on the other hand, issue by issue, the Chicago collar counties are more liberal and are far more embracing of public transportation and less socially conservative. That should be enough to keep them solid Democratic in federal races barring a GOP landslide.

On paragraph 2, people need to stop pretending Illinois will be the GOP savior in answer to demographics flipping Texas to the Democrats. Right now Texas is simply voting more demographically in line to what it was before! And have you seen the types of people moving to Texas? They are largely conservative! The Democratic lock out in Texas will be over if it not already over but you could argue that maybe, just maybe, Texas was inflatedly Republican.

Also I would not bet on a state that will have 15 to 16 electoral votes to be the savior of the GOP. Long term it will probably bump up to 20 again when climate change takes toll of course. But the GOP is better off investing in Texas than Illinois.

Another point on Illinois, the metro east is one of the very few ancestral Democratic areas that could revert back a little. They are not particularly conservative counites (Madison, St Clair, etc).


Of course we really can not predict more than a decade into the future.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: sg0508 on August 18, 2019, 07:22:35 pm
They must continue to make inroads with blue collar workers, especially those who are more traditional and more socially moderate.

I believe 2020 will be the final time the GOP won't have to "try" to win in TX.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 19, 2019, 02:10:51 am
The easiest group to augment non-college whites would be Midwest suburban voters, particularly those suburbs that are lacking in diversity. This secures that region (save Illinois). These suburbs lack the pressures (see my post above about top heaviness with Boomer whites to offset minority margins) that are long term threatening the GOP in Texas and Georgia and would be more likely to bounce back afterwards. The GOP didn't lose any suburban House seats in Wisconsin or Ohio in 2018 (and yes gerrys were a factor of course), but even looking at the county results for Governor: DeWine did better than Trump in Delaware County, Walker did better in Wow, and Rauner did better in the collar counties. By contrast Kemp did worse than Trump in Cobb and Gwinnett. McSally did worse in Maricopa and Cruz did worse in Tarrant.

Granted these were Governor and Senate races, but we are seeing a level of GOP resilience in that area even with Trump as President that could translate into better performances post Trump, which leaves the GOP as a more Rust belt/Midwest centric party over the course of the next decade. This would invariably translate into candidates who by necessity of survival have to successfully combine Trump level support with non-college whites, and decent college white support in the suburbs. This would invariably translate into better performances over time in Illinois (~40s) and after a couple of cycles being shut out trying to go the GA/TX route (call it the sunbelt blue wall in a future scenario), throwing some money into Illinois begins to look appealing. Throw in some third party vote splitting and a narrow 48%-46% win in the 2030's isn't unreasonable.

On paragraph one I have argued many times that with the exception of Lake County that the Illnois suburban collar ring will be tilting slightly Republican on local races. There is much more of a Chicago vs rest of state dynamic there. Contrast that to Cobb and Gwinnett Counties in Georgia which will almost certainly be likely to solid Democratic up and down the ballot and with less sitgma towards Atlanta than Chicago.

But on the other hand, issue by issue, the Chicago collar counties are more liberal and are far more embracing of public transportation and less socially conservative. That should be enough to keep them solid Democratic in federal races barring a GOP landslide.

On paragraph 2, people need to stop pretending Illinois will be the GOP savior in answer to demographics flipping Texas to the Democrats. Right now Texas is simply voting more demographically in line to what it was before! And have you seen the types of people moving to Texas? They are largely conservative! The Democratic lock out in Texas will be over if it not already over but you could argue that maybe, just maybe, Texas was inflatedly Republican.

Also I would not bet on a state that will have 15 to 16 electoral votes to be the savior of the GOP. Long term it will probably bump up to 20 again when climate change takes toll of course. But the GOP is better off investing in Texas than Illinois.

Another point on Illinois, the metro east is one of the very few ancestral Democratic areas that could revert back a little. They are not particularly conservative counites (Madison, St Clair, etc).


Of course we really can not predict more than a decade into the future.


Not predict, project reasonable scenarios based on a set of factors that would dictate such scenario occurring. That is what this entire thread is about.

I don't disagree with your points about the GOP and Illinois, right now. But politics is evolutionary and parties exist to get to power. Over the longer term, if they cannot get to power they will adapt to reclaim it.

Over the medium to long term the GOP faces a steeper climb in the sunbelt because of the reasons I explored in my post about Mississippi. They are too dependent on winning white votes by inflated margins and those margins are coming from a particular age group that isn't getting any younger. That is fundamentally the underlying root of the GOP's problems in GA, TX and many other places. The White vote is recessing towards the national average in those states and the more educated the population, the more it will recess putting the GOP in a very precarious spot going forward.

They are not in such dire straits outside of the sunbelt. Virtually every trend map in the last three cycles has confirmed this dynamic to be occurring.

What happens to the GOP if TX whites fall to 60% Republican? It becomes solidly democratic. 50*60 = 30%  Add another 10% from Hispanics or so (and that is probably too generous by that point). Right now it is 57*69 = 39% plus 30*34 = 10% for a total of ~50%.

Who do you think is going to be easier to flip? Secular white moderates in Illinois suburbs, or Millienial/Gen Z Whites/Latinos in TX for whom the state level GOP will be radioactive? Democratic control of Illinois helps the GOP because the GOP isn't in a position to wreck themselves long term like they are in a position to do in Texas, Arizona and Georgia through trying to engage in "corrective measures". Call it the Pete Wilson effect.



Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: AN63093 on August 19, 2019, 11:14:04 am
On paragraph 2, people need to stop pretending Illinois will be the GOP savior in answer to demographics flipping Texas to the Democrats. Right now Texas is simply voting more demographically in line to what it was before! And have you seen the types of people moving to Texas? They are largely conservative! The Democratic lock out in Texas will be over if it not already over but you could argue that maybe, just maybe, Texas was inflatedly Republican.

Also I would not bet on a state that will have 15 to 16 electoral votes to be the savior of the GOP. Long term it will probably bump up to 20 again when climate change takes toll of course. But the GOP is better off investing in Texas than Illinois.


Who are these "people" who are claiming that IL will be the GOP's "savior?"  I just flipped back through this thread and no one said that.

What was being argued, was that if current demographic trends continue, there will come a time in a couple decades where the GOP will find it easier to win IL than states like TX and GA.  And that is a completely reasonable projection.

No one in this thread has said this is necessarily good for the GOP, much less the "savior," so I'm not sure why you imagined it.  All things considered, I suspect most Republicans would rather have TX, especially given that it has the fastest growing metros in the US, and IL is shrinking.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Technocracy Timmy on August 19, 2019, 11:43:16 am
Right now Texas is simply voting more demographically in line to what it was before! And have you seen the types of people moving to Texas? They are largely conservative! The Democratic lock out in Texas will be over if it not already over but you could argue that maybe, just maybe, Texas was inflatedly Republican.

I think you’re conflating voting patterns with margins here. The Democratic base in 1990’s Texas was very different than the one that is currently rising up. The last Democratic nominee for President that won Texas carried the modern day boundaries of TX-13. The maps for winning statewide Democratic Party members in the 1990’s had far more rural support while siphoning off votes in the suburbs to the GOP.

The floor of liberals + millenials (Texas iirc is the second or third youngest state by median age), and minorities is not only rising but is also forming a generic left wing voting bloc. Somebody as left wing as Beto wouldn’t have had a snowball’s chance in Hell winning statewide in 1990.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Old School Republican on August 19, 2019, 01:18:09 pm
The easiest group to augment non-college whites would be Midwest suburban voters, particularly those suburbs that are lacking in diversity. This secures that region (save Illinois). These suburbs lack the pressures (see my post above about top heaviness with Boomer whites to offset minority margins) that are long term threatening the GOP in Texas and Georgia and would be more likely to bounce back afterwards. The GOP didn't lose any suburban House seats in Wisconsin or Ohio in 2018 (and yes gerrys were a factor of course), but even looking at the county results for Governor: DeWine did better than Trump in Delaware County, Walker did better in Wow, and Rauner did better in the collar counties. By contrast Kemp did worse than Trump in Cobb and Gwinnett. McSally did worse in Maricopa and Cruz did worse in Tarrant.

Granted these were Governor and Senate races, but we are seeing a level of GOP resilience in that area even with Trump as President that could translate into better performances post Trump, which leaves the GOP as a more Rust belt/Midwest centric party over the course of the next decade. This would invariably translate into candidates who by necessity of survival have to successfully combine Trump level support with non-college whites, and decent college white support in the suburbs. This would invariably translate into better performances over time in Illinois (~40s) and after a couple of cycles being shut out trying to go the GA/TX route (call it the sunbelt blue wall in a future scenario), throwing some money into Illinois begins to look appealing. Throw in some third party vote splitting and a narrow 48%-46% win in the 2030's isn't unreasonable.

On paragraph one I have argued many times that with the exception of Lake County that the Illnois suburban collar ring will be tilting slightly Republican on local races. There is much more of a Chicago vs rest of state dynamic there. Contrast that to Cobb and Gwinnett Counties in Georgia which will almost certainly be likely to solid Democratic up and down the ballot and with less sitgma towards Atlanta than Chicago.

But on the other hand, issue by issue, the Chicago collar counties are more liberal and are far more embracing of public transportation and less socially conservative. That should be enough to keep them solid Democratic in federal races barring a GOP landslide.

On paragraph 2, people need to stop pretending Illinois will be the GOP savior in answer to demographics flipping Texas to the Democrats. Right now Texas is simply voting more demographically in line to what it was before! And have you seen the types of people moving to Texas? They are largely conservative! The Democratic lock out in Texas will be over if it not already over but you could argue that maybe, just maybe, Texas was inflatedly Republican.

Also I would not bet on a state that will have 15 to 16 electoral votes to be the savior of the GOP. Long term it will probably bump up to 20 again when climate change takes toll of course. But the GOP is better off investing in Texas than Illinois.

Another point on Illinois, the metro east is one of the very few ancestral Democratic areas that could revert back a little. They are not particularly conservative counites (Madison, St Clair, etc).


Of course we really can not predict more than a decade into the future.


Not predict, project reasonable scenarios based on a set of factors that would dictate such scenario occurring. That is what this entire thread is about.

I don't disagree with your points about the GOP and Illinois, right now. But politics is evolutionary and parties exist to get to power. Over the longer term, if they cannot get to power they will adapt to reclaim it.

Over the medium to long term the GOP faces a steeper climb in the sunbelt because of the reasons I explored in my post about Mississippi. They are too dependent on winning white votes by inflated margins and those margins are coming from a particular age group that isn't getting any younger. That is fundamentally the underlying root of the GOP's problems in GA, TX and many other places. The White vote is recessing towards the national average in those states and the more educated the population, the more it will recess putting the GOP in a very precarious spot going forward.

They are not in such dire straits outside of the sunbelt. Virtually every trend map in the last three cycles has confirmed this dynamic to be occurring.

What happens to the GOP if TX whites fall to 60% Republican? It becomes solidly democratic. 50*60 = 30%  Add another 10% from Hispanics or so (and that is probably too generous by that point). Right now it is 57*69 = 39% plus 30*34 = 10% for a total of ~50%.

Who do you think is going to be easier to flip? Secular white moderates in Illinois suburbs, or Millienial/Gen Z Whites/Latinos in TX for whom the state level GOP will be radioactive? Democratic control of Illinois helps the GOP because the GOP isn't in a position to wreck themselves long term like they are in a position to do in Texas, Arizona and Georgia through trying to engage in "corrective measures". Call it the Pete Wilson effect.




Here is the problem, by the time IL flips GOP according to your calcualtions, IL will be gone as well.


()

While GOP gets to 271 EV currently with that map , in the future this map will be a losing map for the GOP . Add NC to the Dem column and GOP gets to 256 EV with current EV appropriation and that number will certainly be lower by then.

Say GOP makes up for NC with CT , RI , VT and DE


()


That yes gets GOP over the top with 273 EV , but that is with current appropriation for the EC, but likely wont be enough as soon as 2024.


Now by 2032 its possible SC could be gone as well as if the GOP share of the White Vote Drops from 70% to 60% they would probably lose even with current Demographics. This very much could happen throughout the deep south even in AL as remember Moore won 68% of the White Vote in AL and lost . So  if this change also happens would doom the GOP even if they win OR and WA(and this isnt taking into account FL which I am keeping in the GOP column).


So the fact is then the GOP would have to win big coastal states like NY or CA at that point which are demographically much much more unfavorable than TX .



So really the best bet for the GOP is for Trump to lose,  then for them to adapt to appeal to the changing electorate in the Sunbelt because if they dont , they will keep losing .



Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: AN63093 on August 19, 2019, 02:40:03 pm
OSR, one thing you're assuming is that EV distribution will remain on current trend lines.  In other words that areas growing now will continue to at the same rate, that the sunbelt will continue growing uniformly, and so on.  I think that instead, you have to look at growth areas one by one, and on a case by case basis.

I think some places, like TX, GA, NC and CO will continue to grow at high rates (at least for the next couple decades), but things could rapidly change.  Take, for example, CA.  CA had two significant periods of growth- one in the early 20th century, and then another post WW2 period that peaked in the 60s and stayed strong through the 80s, but then began decreasing.  The growth has actually slowed in CA now.. obviously, it is not shrinking or anything like that.  But that being said, the days of CA hitting >10% appear to be behind it and it's not among the growth leaders in the country anymore.. it's projected to hit about the US average on the next census.

The growth in CA is mainly centered around the Bay Area currently (compare to, e.g., the LA metro), and how sustainable this is (and for how long, particularly as millennials age and start wanting to begin families, buy houses etc) is a fair question IMO.  Keep in mind that the Bay Area is largely anchored by Silicon Valley- but the country's center for tech innovation can (and has) changed over time.  For much of the 20th century, it was mostly centered in the Northeast, and Silicon Valley didn't really begin to displace it until the 1970s.  It is certainly conceivable that it could shift again, say to TX maybe? (to some degree, that has already begun).

And take other states- like how much longer do we expect the growth in AZ and FL to continue if its largely driven by retirees?  Also consider NY- does it make sense for the GOP to start thinking about how to win it, if its among the slowest growing states in the US (even below MI), such that at some point, if trends don't reverse, it will basically just be the city and that's it?

A CA that is stagnant for the next 20-30 years has fairly profound implications for the EC, especially if other states are regularly hitting >10-15% in its place.  What looks like a disadvantage now, may not in a few decades if the EC has changed.  Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that CA is going to suddenly transform into the rust belt or something, but what I am suggesting is that when we make projections, we can't just look at population trends and assume they're uniform across the country, and have to also question assumptions about how the EVs will be allocated.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: jimmie on August 19, 2019, 07:50:53 pm
It is impossible to predict how elections will go long term especially more than a decade in advanced.

Yes the GOP will have to adapt but so many assume Illinois will flip and save the GOP electorally. That is mathematically impossible.

The GOP will adapt to win in the future that could include Illinois but ot would be a stupid state to focus on entirely.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: RINO Tom on August 19, 2019, 09:18:24 pm
^ Jimmie, you’re the only one focusing on IL entirely. ;)


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: TrendsareUsuallyReal on August 20, 2019, 09:23:05 am
What a dumpster fire of a thread. How are people seriously making the argument that most people moving into Texas are conservatives? That is blatantly false when you look at the growing regions of the state: every county with a booming population has zoomed left over the past decade.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: DC Al Fine on August 20, 2019, 10:40:32 am
What a dumpster fire of a thread. How are people seriously making the argument that most people moving into Texas are conservatives? That is blatantly false when you look at the growing regions of the state: every county with a booming population has zoomed left over the past decade.

()

It's an exit poll so take it with a grain of salt, but the conservative expat narrative isn't totally baseless. If transplants are whiter and older than 'natives' and 'native' millennial whites aren't voting GOP at the ultra high rates of their boomer parents, it isn't that far out there to think transplants are a bit to the right of born and raised Texans.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: MT Treasurer on August 20, 2019, 11:04:45 am
It is impossible to predict how erections will go long term especially more than a decade in advanced.

Yes the GOP will have to adapt but so many assume Illinois will flip and save the GOP electorally. That is mathematically impossible.

The GOP will adapt to win in the future that could include Illinois but ot would be a stupid state to focus on entirely.

Might wanna edit one letter in your post...


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Old School Republican on August 20, 2019, 11:05:17 am
What a dumpster fire of a thread. How are people seriously making the argument that most people moving into Texas are conservatives? That is blatantly false when you look at the growing regions of the state: every county with a booming population has zoomed left over the past decade.

3 years not a decade lol . Texas trended R in 2012 and 2014 and potentially even 2010.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Wherever you want to go, you can't go there! on August 20, 2019, 11:34:24 am
There was once a COGOP troll on this website saying that Colorado was going from Lean R to Likely R thanks to the influx of new workers and special interest groups.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: TrendsareUsuallyReal on August 20, 2019, 12:02:05 pm
What a dumpster fire of a thread. How are people seriously making the argument that most people moving into Texas are conservatives? That is blatantly false when you look at the growing regions of the state: every county with a booming population has zoomed left over the past decade.

()

It's an exit poll so take it with a grain of salt, but the conservative expat narrative isn't totally baseless. If transplants are whiter and older than 'natives' and 'native' millennial whites aren't voting GOP at the ultra high rates of their boomer parents, it isn't that far out there to think transplants are a bit to the right of born and raised Texans.

And anyone with a brain capable of the smallest amount of logical reasoning can add two and two together and look at a damn map of the state and see the areas that haven’t grown (ie-highest to the largest amount of native Texans) have only gotten redder. Meanwhile look at the counties where people are moving to: Travis, Williamson, DFW, Bexar, Harris, Fort Bend) and it’s abundantly clear that the transplants are driving the majority of the change. That exit poll is BS


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: TrendsareUsuallyReal on August 20, 2019, 12:04:20 pm
What a dumpster fire of a thread. How are people seriously making the argument that most people moving into Texas are conservatives? That is blatantly false when you look at the growing regions of the state: every county with a booming population has zoomed left over the past decade.

3 years not a decade lol . Texas trended R in 2012 and 2014 and potentially even 2010.

I know you’re convinced that Texas isn’t a problematic state for Republicans and I actually encourage you to continue thinking that, but I do want to point out the bluening  of Texas started ten years ago when Obama became the first Democrat in a long time to win Harris County and Dallas County. The signs started showing up then


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 20, 2019, 09:38:18 pm
The problem with that question is that a millenial born in 1992 in Tarrant County counts as "born in Texas" where as a Baby boomer who moved to Texas in 1992 counts as moved to Texas. You need an age break down of that question.

You also have to remember that for years the people moving to NC were Republican leaning and now that situation has changed. The same happened with New Hampshire.

The whole population of "Moved to Texas" doesn't matter if it includes people that where there voting in 2004. What matters is who is moving to Texas NOW and how they voting.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 20, 2019, 09:50:01 pm
What a dumpster fire of a thread. How are people seriously making the argument that most people moving into Texas are conservatives? That is blatantly false when you look at the growing regions of the state: every county with a booming population has zoomed left over the past decade.

3 years not a decade lol . Texas trended R in 2012 and 2014 and potentially even 2010.

Mittens was a very good fit for a certain kind of high end, college educated white suburban Republican, even in the sunbelt. He won Atlanta burbs in the 2008 primaries against Huckabee and McCain for instance.

2014 has to be placed in context, it was the lowest turnout election since 1942. I love to point this out, but Kasich got 300,000 less votes than DeWine and about the same number of votes he got in 2010 when he basically tied with Strickland. The whole reason Kasich got 63% was 800,000 Dems didn't vote. Sandoval while getting 70% of the vote, got less raw votes than Laxalt who got 45%.

And in Texas Abbot got almost 2 million less votes in 2014, while winning by a bigger margin than he did over Lupe Valdez.

2014 data is very misleading thus, because a lot of the voters that are driving these trends didn't vote.

Even in 2014, there was a massive exit poll age gap of almost 40% between the oldest voting block and the youngest.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 20, 2019, 09:56:57 pm
Consider this for a minute, if Texas ends up voting like CA and NY, then it by extension becomes just as easy to win the latter as it does the former. Basically the end game is that the GOP has to evolve enough to get back to competing on a 1976 style map because there will be too few areas that it can dominate exclusively while letting the other party do the same in some other states.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Statilius the Epicurean on August 21, 2019, 01:00:46 am
I agree with Blairite that it's wishful thinking to predict Chicago going the way of Detroit considering it's a global city with a strong knowledge base, the exact type of place which in the world economy is poised for massive growth. If Republicans have to bet on Illinois going red then they're in a pretty desperate situation.  

IMO post-Trump the GOP should just nominate a black guy like Tim Scott to detoxify the party on race. Or get the first Hispanic president. Marry that to Trump-lite nationalism and I don't see why you couldn't largely retain non-college whites while eating in to the Democrats' current absurdly huge margins with minorities. Maybe it will take another few cycles but there will reach a point where everyone gets tired of unending racial polarisation and a mold-breaking nominee will be perfectly place to unite the country on a 2008 Obama post-racial message.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: DC Al Fine on August 21, 2019, 05:46:21 am
The problem with that question is that a millenial born in 1992 in Tarrant County counts as "born in Texas" where as a Baby boomer who moved to Texas in 1992 counts as moved to Texas. You need an age break down of that question.

You also have to remember that for years the people moving to NC were Republican leaning and now that situation has changed. The same happened with New Hampshire.

The whole population of "Moved to Texas" doesn't matter if it includes people that where there voting in 2004. What matters is who is moving to Texas NOW and how they voting.

Yeah that probably explains the difference. Thanks.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Senator tack50 (Lab-Lincoln) on August 21, 2019, 06:32:35 pm
Here is a possible map that allows for a GOP victory without winning Illinois or Texas

()

271 R - 267 D

Granted it's not the most likely map in the world and it is very possible that redistribution of EVs mean this is a Dem victory after 2020 or 2030, but it is a map at least


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: jimmie on August 21, 2019, 07:24:07 pm
Illinois could become a Republican state in the future but it will not be the GOP's savior.

The GOP will have to adjust to demographic changes.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Wherever you want to go, you can't go there! on August 21, 2019, 07:45:31 pm
The problem with that question is that a millenial born in 1992 in Tarrant County counts as "born in Texas" where as a Baby boomer who moved to Texas in 1992 counts as moved to Texas. You need an age break down of that question.

You also have to remember that for years the people moving to NC were Republican leaning and now that situation has changed. The same happened with New Hampshire.

The whole population of "Moved to Texas" doesn't matter if it includes people that where there voting in 2004. What matters is who is moving to Texas NOW and how they voting.

Yeah that probably explains the difference. Thanks.
That actually does make sense because exit polls have regularly said that if only transplants voted in Colorado, it would still be a red state.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Skill and Chance on August 24, 2019, 02:22:24 pm
Honestly I could see the answer being NY, with Republicans getting West Texas style margins from the Upstate in the 2030's. 


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: RINO Tom on August 24, 2019, 02:32:01 pm
Honestly I could see the answer being NY, with Republicans getting West Texas style margins from the Upstate in the 2030's. 

See, I just see this as too mathematically oriented.  People don’t slide along axes.  Upstate NY isn’t as homogeneous as West Texas in any sense.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Skill and Chance on August 24, 2019, 03:19:10 pm
Honestly I could see the answer being NY, with Republicans getting West Texas style margins from the Upstate in the 2030's. 

See, I just see this as too mathematically oriented.  People don’t slide along axes.  Upstate NY isn’t as homogeneous as West Texas in any sense.

There is a developing divide by industry in addition to the class/education and urban/rural divides that get much more attention.  If Trump gets reelected, it will in part be because there is a strong sense that protectionism is helping save jobs in a lot of industrial areas.  Over the course of 10-20 years of that, mid size industrial cities (of which there are plenty in Upstate NY, like Buffalo, Syracuse, Rochester, etc.) could easily develop an attachment to Republicans that rivals the late 20th century oil patch.  I could even see Republicans eventually doing better in NY than in NJ/CT (not to mention MA) for this reason. 

Also, in part because it is so large, NYC is one of the least politically homogenous large cities.  There's a better path back to 30% for Republicans there than in any of the other giant cities save Houston where they already have >30%. 


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: pops on August 24, 2019, 09:00:31 pm
It's North Carolina

()



Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: 538Electoral on August 24, 2019, 09:18:27 pm
Here is a possible map that allows for a GOP victory without winning Illinois or Texas

()

271 R - 267 D

Granted it's not the most likely map in the world and it is very possible that redistribution of EVs mean this is a Dem victory after 2020 or 2030, but it is a map at least

Republicans could potentially upset in NJ in a few elections too.


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: jake_arlington on August 31, 2019, 10:15:39 pm
I think something alone the lines of this following?

270towin.com/maps/K8rke

But of course reallocation may complicate this path



What if the Repub nominee loses the SE as well though? Interesting thought experiment


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: jake_arlington on September 01, 2019, 01:07:16 pm
Wouldn't be totally shocked to see something like this becoming the case, either

i.imgur.com/xqVPxVm.png

And many years down the line, this could become a possibility too:

i.imgur.com/uRa0o2S.png


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Monstro on September 02, 2019, 03:27:15 am
Illinois could become a Republican state in the future but it will not be the GOP's savior.

The GOP will have to adjust to demographic changes.

Quoted just to remove that moving text


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: Cory Booker on September 02, 2019, 10:53:13 am
VA can be won with a weak nominee like Warren or Harris but they arent likely nominees


Title: Re: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
Post by: DOWnward Spiral on September 02, 2019, 01:26:34 pm
it'll be hard with increasing diversity, Republicans would need some serious outreach, but right now it seems they're turning away from that...