Will the South ever go Democratic & the North Republican again?

[RINO Tom]

The parties would have to switch their views on social issues, which doesn't seem likely at this point

Way more complicated than that.  The Northeast is far more diverse, far less WASPy and far less economically conservative than it was when the GOP had strength there.  Additionally, the South is far less agrarian and doesn't appreciate economic populism the way it did when Democrats could win there.  In addition to the parties changing with time, these quite literally are completely different regions than they once were.

However, anyone saying "never" needs to take a history class.  The South will vote Democrat again, and the Northeast will vote Republican again.  Period.  It won't be anytime soon barring some unforeseen event.

[RINO Tom]

In the near term? Only in RINO Tom's wet dreams and Santander's nightmares.

I'm sure at some point there will be some type of realignment though. It seems unlikely the same exact coalitions will persist for centuries. The exact circumstances of the realignment and what it would cause is anyone's guess though.

I love the South, and I'd welcome their votes.  The Southern Republicans of Reagan's and Clinton's and Bush's terms were just fine.  Were they too socially conservative for my taste?  Oh yeah.  But they embraced the party's economic policies and LARGELY respectful of at least keeping their more offensive/intolerant views under the rug on the national stage.  The post-2008 infusion I've not been a fan of, as those folks were Democrats previously whose main issue with the party seemed to be it was TOO tolerant.  I'm not going to welcome racists and xenophobes, especially if they want to fundamentally change the party's economic message and cost us much more reliable voters in the suburbs and battleground states, as bad as that sounds.

[RINO Tom]

I could easily see the Democrats winning VA, NC, SC, LA, GA, MS and FL in a competitive race in 20 years, while the Republicans (who become more populist) win WI, MI, ME, CT, PA, IL and MN.

We'll see.

[RINO Tom]

I think we are slowly heading in that direction.

There's plenty of signs for the former (VA going from solid R in 2004 to solid D in 2016, NC going from solid R in 2004 to a swing state in the last few elections, GA and even TX/SC apparently narrowing significantly) but very little signs for the latter. Back when Trump wasn't getting obliterated he was polling close in PA, but so was Romney at certain points. He hasn't been doing particularly well in MI, WI, or NH. There are a few signs in ME and IA, but that's it.

The Republicans have to make a choice. States will not just fall into their laps, they will have to seek and obtain them through active effort. If they want to continue to pretend it is 1980 and keep offering an Orange County platform that is increasingly going to yield diminishing returns in the sunbelt or embrace a certain amount of economic moderation in exchange for working class voters in the Midwest. Until they do that, they will not gain much, but they will certainly keep losing their present terrain regardless.

It's not an either or.  Both a 1980s platform AND an economically "populist" platform is the wrong approach.  Kind of funny that many of the people living the anti-trade Trumpist direction were the ones warning against social moderation in the past, saying being "Democrat lite" won't win elections.  What do you call copying their economic ideals (yes, protectionism is still mostly owned by the Democrats in practice at this point in time; the fiercest anti-traders remain unions and the Bernie crowd and the fiercest free traders are Republicans)?

[RINO Tom]

I think we are slowly heading in that direction.

There's plenty of signs for the former (VA going from solid R in 2004 to solid D in 2016, NC going from solid R in 2004 to a swing state in the last few elections, GA and even TX/SC apparently narrowing significantly) but very little signs for the latter. Back when Trump wasn't getting obliterated he was polling close in PA, but so was Romney at certain points. He hasn't been doing particularly well in MI, WI, or NH. There are a few signs in ME and IA, but that's it.

The Republicans have to make a choice. States will not just fall into their laps, they will have to seek and obtain them through active effort. If they want to continue to pretend it is 1980 and keep offering an Orange County platform that is increasingly going to yield diminishing returns in the sunbelt or embrace a certain amount of economic moderation in exchange for working class voters in the Midwest. Until they do that, they will not gain much, but they will certainly keep losing their present terrain regardless.

It's not an either or.  Both a 1980s platform AND an economically "populist" platform is the wrong approach.  Kind of funny that many of the people living the anti-trade Trumpist direction were the ones warning against social moderation in the past, saying being "Democrat lite" won't win elections.  What do you call copying their economic ideals (yes, protectionism is still mostly owned by the Democrats in practice at this point in time; the fiercest anti-traders remain unions and the Bernie crowd and the fiercest free traders are Republicans)?

There's an ancient free trader strain among Democrats, while they only ever became protectionist for one generation at the very height of mid 20th century Union power.  If Republicans come to broadly advocate for tariffs, strict penalties for currency manipulator so, etc., they are only returning to the position their party held from its founding to WWII.

Being a protectionist in a developing economy is more akin to being a free trader in an economic power than it is to being a protectionist in an economic power.  Motive says a lot more about a party than method.  The arguments 1800s and early 1900s Democrats used to promote free trade are eerily similar to the arguments modern Democrats use to promote protectionism: "Who cares if it benefits American businesses if it hurts American workers."  I've said it before, but there is absolutely no coincidence behind the GOP seemingly flip-flopping on the issue of trade.  Once American business leaders no longer saw a benefit to high tariffs in a post-World War II economy, neither did Republican lawmakers who represented their interests.

[RINO Tom]

I think we are slowly heading in that direction.

There's plenty of signs for the former (VA going from solid R in 2004 to solid D in 2016, NC going from solid R in 2004 to a swing state in the last few elections, GA and even TX/SC apparently narrowing significantly) but very little signs for the latter. Back when Trump wasn't getting obliterated he was polling close in PA, but so was Romney at certain points. He hasn't been doing particularly well in MI, WI, or NH. There are a few signs in ME and IA, but that's it.

I could easily see the Democrats winning VA, NC, SC, LA, GA, MS and FL in a competitive race in 20 years, while the Republicans (who become more populist) win WI, MI, ME, CT, PA, IL and MN.

We'll see.

Ha!

...?

[RINO Tom]

Florida's still part of the South, right?

Well, the South is a region, and it doesn't change its boundaries EVER, no matter how mad both people in Miami or in rural Alabama might get at that statement.  The South is the South.  It's a big, diverse region, but it's static.  Period.