If Southeast + Texas become competitive, where will GOP base be?

[Rockefeller GOP]

1) Current trends won't continue forever ... We're just being ignorant of history if we act like the parties' support groups will remain static; they've changed so much in the last 160 years...

2) For the sake of argument, this would be my guess: states with high minority populations become clearly Dem and Dems go in an economically populist direction to win back working class voters who only turned Republican because of cultural issues (which will be less prevalent down the road.  Republicans go in a more libertarian direction, winning rural areas almost everywhere (including New England), become even less competitive in cities and inner-suburbs, while making gains back in outer/wealthier suburbs (without the baggage of being thought of as anti-gay/anti-immigration).  Here's a guess:

[Rockefeller GOP]

Both maps talk about democratic votes correlating with minority populations, yet both give Connecticut to the Republicans and Vermont and Rhode Island to the Democrats even though Connecticut by contrast has a huge minority population.

Vermont is such a different state than it was when it voted Republican ... It's too far gone to go back to the GOP anytime soon.  As for CT, good point; I'd probably switch that back to red in my map.

As another post has said, though, I wouldn't consider the Deep South our base (at least if base means most loyal), I'd put it in the Utah-Wyoming-Idaho region.

[Rockefeller GOP]

OP's scenario would probably look something like this. If the Dems are going to capture the southeast, they probably would be easing back on stances on immigration and social issues, which would make the GOP increasingly competitive in the southwest, its expanding bastion in the scenario. I feel as if that would not aid in making Texas competitive, but I did the best I could.

These realignments would be more likely, however, in my opinion.

The GOP loses the Latino vote because of their history on immigration, similar to how they have lost the black vote for the last half century because of their stance on segregation. They gain some ground in the northeast and Midwest as social issues fade away and suburban areas drift back toward them. The Dems pick up ground along the southeastern coast with changing demographics as those states depart from their neighbors culturally.

Or, the GOP comes around on immigration and starts winning back Latinos. They solidify the western Rockies and the southwest. This gives way to a more populist, collectivist Democratic Party that returns to its once-clear pattern of holding the south and northern states with cities. This allows the GOP into much of the Midwest and northeast but also creates a clear southern divide between coal states and non-coal states.

These scenarios are all a few cycles down the road, though. I don't see such dramatic changes happening rapidly.

Thanks for the well thought out post, it was very interesting.  It'll be fascinating to see how the two parties' coalitions endure or collapse in the coming decades.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Well, considering the national map is tending to represent the country socially now more than ever (just look at the gay marriage map vs. whether states are more D/R than the national average since the late 90s), and the country is progressing culturally faster than ever, the GOP isn't going to have a base in 20 years unless they change. 

They are the GOP, they will.  Probably towards a more libertarian platform which will buy them a lot of independent votes from suburbia while they retain their Southern/white base who couldn't even think of voting for a Democrat.   

Probably not anytime soon, but what makes you so sure a poor, White Southerner would favor a socially liberal, fiscally conservative GOP over a socially liberal, fiscally populist Democratic Party in, say, 50 years?  I mean they did for decades after all ... (Spare me the parties switched ideologies bull.)

[Rockefeller GOP]

Well, considering the national map is tending to represent the country socially now more than ever (just look at the gay marriage map vs. whether states are more D/R than the national average since the late 90s), and the country is progressing culturally faster than ever, the GOP isn't going to have a base in 20 years unless they change. 

They are the GOP, they will.  Probably towards a more libertarian platform which will buy them a lot of independent votes from suburbia while they retain their Southern/white base who couldn't even think of voting for a Democrat.   

Probably not anytime soon, but what makes you so sure a poor, White Southerner would favor a socially liberal, fiscally conservative GOP over a socially liberal, fiscally populist Democratic Party in, say, 50 years?  I mean they did for decades after all ... (Spare me the parties switched ideologies bull.)

You're assuming most of these poor white Southerners are still fiscally liberal. I don't think most of them are anymore. I think most of them have gone so "all in" with the GOP on social issues that they've now adopted their economic theory as well.

So true.  It seems like on average they are more likely to complain about how big businesses are being overtaxed and oversued...

Oh no, I'd agree with that: they're much more fiscally conservative than ever, and the pounding of social issues by the GOP is the reason why.  Like I said, I don't see that changing anytime soon.  However, I have to wonder if they'd at least drift back toward center if the GOP were no longer seen as the defiantly more culturally conservative party in the distant future.