How would a map look like if the parties platform was like this

[PoliticalShelter]

Given that this is basically shifting half the democratic party to the republicans in exchange for a few WWC voters, not good for Democrats.

And I'm being generous.

With Dems being more socially conservative in the south wouldn't that take the issue if the table and they could possibly win those states . Also Dems would not lose New York and Illinois

Or California and Massachusetts

[PoliticalShelter]

Anyway if we are going for the good old "Democratic Party led by Bernie sanders" vs "Republican Party led by Charlie Baker" then this is what a close election would roughly end up looking like:

Anyway it wouldn't be as different as you'd think. Republicans would improve their performance in the northeast enough to start winning some states. Meanwhile the democrats would improve their numbers with southern rural whites enough to start winning some of the states in the southeast coastal area.

Overall the main effect wouldn't be a completely alien map, but more of a less polarised map, with red states and blue states moving closer to the centre, while still remaining in their respective parties.

Oh yeah and the Midwest would still be a swing area.

[PoliticalShelter]

Given that this is basically shifting half the democratic party to the republicans in exchange for a few WWC voters, not good for Democrats.

And I'm being generous.

With Dems being more socially conservative in the south wouldn't that take the issue if the table and they could possibly win those states . Also Dems would not lose New York and Illinois

Or California and Massachusetts

Mass would definitely still be dem , I think Cali would only be lean dem though cause of their immigration stance

Massachusetts would be lean Dem, probably. Winnable for republicans, but Democrats would probably be slightly favored. California would be solid R. Hispanics and Asians would not be democratic, and college educated whites would shift heavily republican.

Please explain why Hispanics would vote for the economically right wing party, especially since the HB1 visas primarly benefit Asians and Europeans, unless you think that Hispanics vote democratic because of social issues or some other nonsense.

[PoliticalShelter]

Given that this is basically shifting half the democratic party to the republicans in exchange for a few WWC voters, not good for Democrats.

And I'm being generous.

With Dems being more socially conservative in the south wouldn't that take the issue if the table and they could possibly win those states . Also Dems would not lose New York and Illinois

Or California and Massachusetts

Mass would definitely still be dem , I think Cali would only be lean dem though cause of their immigration stance

Massachusetts would be lean Dem, probably. Winnable for republicans, but Democrats would probably be slightly favored. California would be solid R. Hispanics and Asians would not be democratic, and college educated whites would shift heavily republican.

Please explain why Hispanics would vote for the economically right wing party, especially since the HB1 visas primarly benefit Asians and Europeans, unless you think that Hispanics vote democratic because of social issues or some other nonsense.

The pro-immigration, socially centrist party is a lot closer to them than the nativist left.

No it really isn't.

Also why do Hispanics care about a program that for the most part, they don't benefit from. The reason they care about a pathway to citizenship is because they personally know or are related to many of those undocumented immigrants. That is (mostly) not the case for those on HB1 visas.

Also I'm pretty sure these democrats are not going to try and racialise the program and will attack the program on economic grounds, which hispanics and working class Asians will certainly not be bothered.

[PoliticalShelter]

Anyway if we are going for the good old "Democratic Party led by Bernie sanders" vs "Republican Party led by Charlie Baker" then this is what a close election would roughly end up looking like:

Anyway it wouldn't be as different as you'd think. Republicans would improve their performance in the northeast enough to start winning some states. Meanwhile the democrats would improve their numbers with southern rural whites enough to start winning some of the states in the southeast coastal area.

Overall the main effect wouldn't be a completely alien map, but more of a less polarised map, with red states and blue states moving closer to the centre, while still remaining in their respective parties.

Oh yeah and the Midwest would still be a swing area.

I agree that that is a reasonable close election map. However, this wouldn't be close.

1988 was only a landslide cause Bush was vp to a popular president in good times and Dukakis ran a horrible campaign.

If you run a far-left candidate against a center/center left candidate, you will lose.

2/10

[PoliticalShelter]

Given that this is basically shifting half the democratic party to the republicans in exchange for a few WWC voters, not good for Democrats.

And I'm being generous.

With Dems being more socially conservative in the south wouldn't that take the issue if the table and they could possibly win those states . Also Dems would not lose New York and Illinois

Or California and Massachusetts

Mass would definitely still be dem , I think Cali would only be lean dem though cause of their immigration stance

Massachusetts would be lean Dem, probably. Winnable for republicans, but Democrats would probably be slightly favored. California would be solid R. Hispanics and Asians would not be democratic, and college educated whites would shift heavily republican.

Please explain why Hispanics would vote for the economically right wing party, especially since the HB1 visas primarly benefit Asians and Europeans, unless you think that Hispanics vote democratic because of social issues or some other nonsense.

The pro-immigration, socially centrist party is a lot closer to them than the nativist left.

No it really isn't.

Also why do Hispanics care about a program that for the most part, they don't benefit from. The reason they care about a pathway to citizenship is because they personally know or are related to many of those undocumented immigrants. That is (mostly) not the case for those on HB1 visas.

Also I'm pretty sure these democrats are not going to try and racialise the program and will attack the program on economic grounds, which hispanics and working class Asians will certainly not be bothered.

The democrats here would almost certainly be nativist.

Did the OP say that the democrats use nativists language in their campagins? No. And considering this Democratic Party will still comfortably be the party of Hispanics, I very much doubt that they will.

[PoliticalShelter]

Given that this is basically shifting half the democratic party to the republicans in exchange for a few WWC voters, not good for Democrats.

And I'm being generous.

With Dems being more socially conservative in the south wouldn't that take the issue if the table and they could possibly win those states . Also Dems would not lose New York and Illinois

Or California and Massachusetts

Mass would definitely still be dem , I think Cali would only be lean dem though cause of their immigration stance

Massachusetts would be lean Dem, probably. Winnable for republicans, but Democrats would probably be slightly favored. California would be solid R. Hispanics and Asians would not be democratic, and college educated whites would shift heavily republican.

Please explain why Hispanics would vote for the economically right wing party, especially since the HB1 visas primarly benefit Asians and Europeans, unless you think that Hispanics vote democratic because of social issues or some other nonsense.

The pro-immigration, socially centrist party is a lot closer to them than the nativist left.

No it really isn't.

Also why do Hispanics care about a program that for the most part, they don't benefit from. The reason they care about a pathway to citizenship is because they personally know or are related to many of those undocumented immigrants. That is (mostly) not the case for those on HB1 visas.

Also I'm pretty sure these democrats are not going to try and racialise the program and will attack the program on economic grounds, which hispanics and working class Asians will certainly not be bothered.

The democrats here would almost certainly be nativist.

Did the OP say that the democrats use nativists language in their campagins? No. And considering this Democratic Party will still comfortably be the party of Hispanics, I very much doubt that they will.

A socially left, protectionist is at the least going to do far worse.

Considering that this is how Obama basically campgained as in 2008, Hispanics seemed to be quite receptive to this campaign, and no a McCain who decided to campaign as his 2000 self, would not have prevented the swing of Hispanics to Obama.

[PoliticalShelter]

Also how would a left wing populist party lose enough minorites for California to become a Solid R state?

[PoliticalShelter]

Cool link, New Democrats don't support literally Republican economic policies, though.

The republican party in this is slightly left of center. The democrats are far left. That's not a winning combination for Dems.

Maybe you do, but to the vast majority of voters these two parties proposed by the OP, are a mainstream right wing party and a mainstream left wing party.

[PoliticalShelter]

Cool link, New Democrats don't support literally Republican economic policies, though.

The republican party in this is slightly left of center. The democrats are far left. That's not a winning combination for Dems.

Maybe you do, but to the vast majority of voters these two parties proposed by the OP, are a mainstream right wing party and a mainstream left wing party.

Oh, yes, I remember how in the GOP debates they all were arguing over whether the minimum wage should be 10 dollars or 12. Wait, no. They weren't. This isn't mainstream left versus mainstream right outside of Vermont.

Who cares that a bunch of out touch GOP politicians said or didn't say. The main point is that most republican voters support a modest increase in the minimum wage and so therefore it is a mainstream opinion amongst right wingers.
It doesn't matter that a bunch of GOP politicians who wrongly thought that the average republican voter is some kind of hardcore conservative ideologue.

[PoliticalShelter]

Cool link, New Democrats don't support literally Republican economic policies, though.

The republican party in this is slightly left of center. The democrats are far left. That's not a winning combination for Dems.

Maybe you do, but to the vast majority of voters these two parties proposed by the OP, are a mainstream right wing party and a mainstream left wing party.

Oh, yes, I remember how in the GOP debates they all were arguing over whether the minimum wage should be 10 dollars or 12. Wait, no. They weren't. This isn't mainstream left versus mainstream right outside of Vermont.

Who cares that a bunch of out touch GOP politicians said or didn't say. The main point is that most republican voters support a modest increase in the minimum wage and so therefore it is a mainstream opinion amongst right wingers.
It doesn't matter that a bunch of GOP politicians who wrongly thought that the average republican voter is some kind of hardcore conservative ideologue.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/jobs_employment/april_2016/few_americans_support_15_minimum_wage_in_their_state. The median position is 10.50. A 10 minimum wage is centrist.

Doesn't change the fact that this is still a mainstream right wing party that mostly holds policy positions to the right of the median American voter.

And no this GOP party is no centre left and this Democratic Party would not be regarded as far left. Deal with it.