Unions as a declining political force.

[illegaloperation]

I see a lot of people here clamming that the Northeast and the Midwest could be competitive in the future because the Democratic Party is performing poorly among whites.

While I agree that the Midwest would be more competitive in the future, I disagree that this is a case in the Northeast.

That the Democratic Party is losing the white vote is out of its control. The Democratic Party is strong in the Midwest because of unionized labor. Unions have been experiencing a deep decline especially in the Midwest and that mean that the strength of the Democratic Party in that region will recede.

The Democratic Party is a strong in the Northeast because the Northeast is very socially liberal. When the Republican Party embraced cultural conservatism, it alienated a lot of northeasterners and bring it to the Democratic fold.

As a result, while the Midwest will likely become more Republican, the Northeast will be unlikely to change significantly.

[ElectionsGuy]

This seems realistic, Illinois will probably take a little while longer than the rest of the Midwest.

[ElectionsGuy]

Also New Hampshire is more likely to become republican because the of the urban more republican population there, and I would also think that Georgia, Texas, and Arizona will stay republican for a while.

[greenforest32]

Illinois should probably be considered separate from those Midwest D-to-R states (Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio) for the purposes of that 2020? map.

Illinois is less white than those states and that's been increasing[1]. Republicans would have to hit something like 64% among whites in Illinois to get things to 50/50 in 2012 and the exit poll showed them at 52% in the state last year.

[1] http://censusscope.org/2010Census/states.php?state=IL&name=Illinois



----

Would make for an interesting map though. Just a few more states like Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina and it would be a coastal sweep . I wonder if those insane Republican margins will decline in the deep south with the next generation of whites. Democrats hitting just the low 20s of the Mississippi white vote instead of the current 10-11% could nearly flip the state.

[illegaloperation]

This seems realistic, Illinois will probably take a little while longer than the rest of the Midwest.

Yes. Illinois would be the last Midwest state to flip.

Also New Hampshire is more likely to become republican because the of the urban more republican population there, and I would also think that Georgia, Texas, and Arizona will stay republican for a while.

Not really. New Hampshire will be even more Democratic than it is today, but it will still vote for Republican once in a while since it's the most elastic state. This is the trend with the Northeast since the Republican Party embraces cultural Conservatism.

And yes, this map will be a while. 2032? The Midwest wouldn't flip overnight either.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Unfortunately the question wasn't asked in 2012, but on the 2008 exit poll in Minnesota:

Are You a Union Member?

Yes (17%) Obama 59% McCain 40% Other1%       
No (83%) Obama 52% McCain 47%    Other 1%

So even if union membership halved (which is extremely unlikely since our unions are mostly in the service industry and public sector, not declining industries), you get a 7 point swing amongst only about 8% of the population, or about half a percent. Not enough to flip the state, especially since minority growth can make up for that. Hell even if unions completely disappeared under those numbers it stays D.

In Illinois there are far more minority voters in the Democrats than white union members, and if you compare the trends recently in the state in the more union heavy part of the state to the less union heavy it's obvious a decline here will not hurt the Democrats. Obviously any exit polls in a race with Obama will be quite skewed but Illinois is another state where demographically unions could completely disappear and the Democrats would still win.

Iowa is already to a right to "work" state and unions are not a major factor there, nor is its economy based around declining industries (or exclusively agriculture for that matter.)

And the 2008 exit poll in Wisconsin:

Are You a Union Member?

Yes (14%) Obama 64% McCain 35% Other 1%       
No (86%) Obama 54% McCain 45%    Other 1%

Halving union membership equals only a 0.7% swing there.

[Asian Nazi]

The influence of unions goes beyond the voting behavior of union members.  Unions are major cash cows for the Democrats and strongly affect the political culture of areas with high union density.

[© tweed]

@BRTD, focusing on the observable 'union effect' at the ballot box is short-sighted.  it has a lot more to do with fundraising and organizing capability.

[ElectionsGuy]

This seems realistic, Illinois will probably take a little while longer than the rest of the Midwest.

Yes. Illinois would be the last Midwest state to flip.

Also New Hampshire is more likely to become republican because the of the urban more republican population there, and I would also think that Georgia, Texas, and Arizona will stay republican for a while.

Not really. New Hampshire will be even more Democratic than it is today, but it will still vote for Republican once in a while since it's the most elastic state. This is the trend with the Northeast since the Republican Party embraces cultural Conservatism.

And yes, this map will be a while. 2032? The Midwest wouldn't flip overnight either.

New Hampshire is somewhat different from the rest of New England, but you could be right. I think it will be a pure toss-up in a close republican win situation, but for now it remains Lean-D in a Lean-D country.

[ElectionsGuy]

Out of the seven Midwest states:

• Indiana: Solid R, flexible (2008 was a very unprecedented swing)
• Ohio: Pure Swing, anyone's State, flexible
• Michigan: Lean D, almost Sold D, flexible.
• Wisconsin: Lean D, flexible
• Minnesota: Lean D, a little less flexible
• Iowa: Lean D, flexible
• Illinois: Solid D, flexible but much out of reach.

Besides Ohio and Indiana, which states do you think will be the first to go red (blue here) in a good year for republicans in the future when Unions will most likely be more declined?

[TJ in Oregon]

After Ohio and Indiana, it's between Wisconsin and Iowa. They are currently the closest, lack really clear barriers to a further shift, and are reasonably elastic. The WI GOP's long term problem is that Madison is the fastest growing metro area, but the rest of the state seems on the balance to heading their way.

Michigan and Minnesota would be the next batch, but that would take a bit more than WI and IA. The problem the GOP has in Michigan is that while most of the state is trending slowly Republican, the metro Detroit area has sooo many votes that it's hard to see the rest of the state outvoting it on a regular basis without some outreach into the black community. Minnesota has a liberal bastion in Minneapolis that will be harder to outvote than Madison in Wisconsin and a large number of Scandinavians that tend to be pretty liberal. MN would be one of the last to turn Republican in this scenario.

Illinois is in its own category for obvious reasons. The GOP would need to either sweep the collar counties or make inroads into Cook to make IL competitive and neither seems all that likely at this point. If the GOP could make gains into the Hispanic and black populations it wouldn't be totally undoable, but IL would be more of a project than any of the others listed.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

@BRTD, focusing on the observable 'union effect' at the ballot box is short-sighted.  it has a lot more to do with fundraising and organizing capability.

But the unions in most of those states, and certainly here, are not in the declining manufacturing industries.

Also with some rough calculations under the state's CURRENT demographics (and it's obviously going to get less whiter), Republicans would need almost 2/3 of the white vote to win Illinois. Like comparable numbers to Idaho.

[LastVoter]

BRTD spouses & kids of union members also have their voting behavior affected.

[ElectionsGuy]

After Ohio and Indiana, it's between Wisconsin and Iowa. They are currently the closest, lack really clear barriers to a further shift, and are reasonably elastic. The WI GOP's long term problem is that Madison is the fastest growing metro area, but the rest of the state seems on the balance to heading their way.

Michigan and Minnesota would be the next batch, but that would take a bit more than WI and IA. The problem the GOP has in Michigan is that while most of the state is trending slowly Republican, the metro Detroit area has sooo many votes that it's hard to see the rest of the state outvoting it on a regular basis without some outreach into the black community. Minnesota has a liberal bastion in Minneapolis that will be harder to outvote than Madison in Wisconsin and a large number of Scandinavians that tend to be pretty liberal. MN would be one of the last to turn Republican in this scenario.

Illinois is in its own category for obvious reasons. The GOP would need to either sweep the collar counties or make inroads into Cook to make IL competitive and neither seems all that likely at this point. If the GOP could make gains into the Hispanic and black populations it wouldn't be totally undoable, but IL would be more of a project than any of the others listed.

Yeah, I would probably put them in this order:

Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Michigan
Illinois

Illinois would need a county sweep besides Cook. They would also need to perform somewhat well in Northern Cook County, probably the best spot to make inroads in. See Mark Kirk's Senate Race in 2010, and remember that he BARELY won...

[ElectionsGuy]

Also with some rough calculations under the state's CURRENT demographics (and it's obviously going to get less whiter), Republicans would need almost 2/3 of the white vote to win Illinois. Like comparable numbers to Idaho.

Or they would need low turnout for blacks/hispanics with a more realistic white vote, but then again Hispanics already turnout poorly. GOP has little to no chance there and probably won't for a long time.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

BRTD spouses & kids of union members also have their voting behavior affected.

Also asked in exit poll:

Is Someone in Household a Union Member?

Minnesota:
Yes (30%) Obama 56% McCain 42% Other 2%       
No (70%) Obama 52% McCain 47% Other1%

Wisconsin:
Yes (26%) Obama 61% McCain 39%
No (74%) Obama 53% McCain 46% Other 1%

It's pretty clear that unions are not the decisive factor in either case, even though they are mostly of the non-declining variety.

Also with some rough calculations under the state's CURRENT demographics (and it's obviously going to get less whiter), Republicans would need almost 2/3 of the white vote to win Illinois. Like comparable numbers to Idaho.

Or they would need low turnout for blacks/hispanics with a more realistic white vote, but then again Hispanics already turnout poorly. GOP has little to no chance there and probably won't for a long time.

That turnout amongst Hispanics is true NOW. In a couple decades down the line when a far greater portion of them are American-born citizens who have been fluent in English their whole lives that won't be as true.