Protectionist GOP vs. Pro-free trade Democratic Party

[traininthedistance]

Protectionism vs. free trade is frankly a very minor issue in the political battles of today, and this arrangement is also both not too far from what we already have, as well as arguably more ideologically consistent.  A social liberal Democratic party that gets the bulk of its vote from a coalition between educated, secular whites and minorities, and appeal to them on issues such as friendliness towards immigration, civil rights, and a healthy respect for science and scholarship is a party that can very comfortably and cogently advocate for free trade.  The Pubs would presumably take a socon "national conservative" turn, and maybe they'd eat further into the white working class, but would also fall further in coastal suburban areas.  

Basically, just a acceleration of the trends we've seen over the past 15 years anyway.  The Dems would  continue to struggle in the House, but should be fine for the Presidency.

This could be the map in a relatively even year:

Dem: 255
Rep: 190
Tossup: 86

Not too far from what we have now; the Dems drop in the Midwest, but work down the southeast coast, solidify the Southwest (though Arizona is pretty stubborn), and break through in Alaska.

[traininthedistance]

GOP comes within a hair's width of winning, though would need to win enough Latinos in the Southwest to ultimately flip the map in their favor. Nevertheless, a much better showing for the Republicans, while the Democrats do better in states that heavily depend upon agriculture and "creative class" centers, allowing them to permanently flip NC and GA, while the Republicans pry off PA and MI.

Minnesota would remain Dem in this scenario; the Twin Cities metro has much less rust on it than your average Midwestern area. 

[traininthedistance]

GOP comes within a hair's width of winning, though would need to win enough Latinos in the Southwest to ultimately flip the map in their favor. Nevertheless, a much better showing for the Republicans, while the Democrats do better in states that heavily depend upon agriculture and "creative class" centers, allowing them to permanently flip NC and GA, while the Republicans pry off PA and MI.

Minnesota would remain Dem in this scenario; the Twin Cities metro has much less rust on it than your average Midwestern area. 

What about the Iron Range/Duluth area?

The Iron Range would move in the other direction, yes... but it's also getting smaller while the Twin Cities area gets larger, so it wouldn't be enough.  A protectionist GOP could basically gain Duluth etc. at the expense of Shakopee etc., and that's not a winning tradeoff.