Are there any states actually trending R?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

States in the heartland trend R when people with dreams and potential leave for New York.

[Sol]

All this stuff about the GOP dying off is absurd. The GOP won't die without some major change or crisis (and even that, I think, is unlikely- if they survived the Depression they can probably survive anything). Granted, the GOP does have demographic issues, which they'll solve eventually, likely by performing better with middle class, assimilated, non-black minorities and white liberals in places like Marin County.

[Free Bird]

All this stuff about the GOP dying off is absurd. The GOP won't die without some major change or crisis (and even that, I think, is unlikely- if they survived the Depression they can probably survive anything). Granted, the GOP does have demographic issues, which they'll solve eventually, likely by performing better with middle class, assimilated, non-black minorities and white liberals in places like Marin County.

Law of Averages alone dictates they'll eventually win over those crowds

[illegaloperation]

Okay, you said that Republicans were a "regional party", and I mentioned some info about the state of that GOP outside of what directly relates Presidential Election Trends to refute your own statement that you posted under this topic. Based on that, I believe that I am justified in posting what I did. Is it too much for you to not act like you always have to be right and that you know everything? That is how you are coming off as.

New York (which I'm sure we both agree is Safe D) is probably not going to grow that much in the future, Florida is not going to become a solidly Democratic state, and Texas is probably going to go Lean R at best for the Democrats in the coming years, and California (another Safe D state) is stagnant population wise. Take that as you will, but it would not appear that things are perfect for the Democrats in what you define as large states.

I don't think the Republicans have an easy path to the White House just like Democrats didn't have an easy path in 2000/2004. You are implying that I believe the Republicans will always have a bad path to the White House. In fact, I think the "genuinely awful Republican party" that you seem to hate with a passion definitely has opportunities at repaving its road to 270 electoral votes as it becomes more competitive in some parts of the Midwest.

The problem with that is that the Republicans are going to have a Virginia-North Carolina-Georgia problem. And let's not forget that these states are gaining EV while the mid-western states are losing EV.

[Never]

Okay, you said that Republicans were a "regional party", and I mentioned some info about the state of that GOP outside of what directly relates Presidential Election Trends to refute your own statement that you posted under this topic. Based on that, I believe that I am justified in posting what I did. Is it too much for you to not act like you always have to be right and that you know everything? That is how you are coming off as.

New York (which I'm sure we both agree is Safe D) is probably not going to grow that much in the future, Florida is not going to become a solidly Democratic state, and Texas is probably going to go Lean R at best for the Democrats in the coming years, and California (another Safe D state) is stagnant population wise. Take that as you will, but it would not appear that things are perfect for the Democrats in what you define as large states.

I don't think the Republicans have an easy path to the White House just like Democrats didn't have an easy path in 2000/2004. You are implying that I believe the Republicans will always have a bad path to the White House. In fact, I think the "genuinely awful Republican party" that you seem to hate with a passion definitely has opportunities at repaving its road to 270 electoral votes as it becomes more competitive in some parts of the Midwest.

The problem with that is that the Republicans are going to have a Virginia-North Carolina-Georgia problem. And let's not forget that these states are gaining EV while the mid-western states are losing EV.

I do agree that Republicans have a problem in some Southern states, but don't think that Georgia is going to be a major issue for quite some time. Nevertheless, it appears that there is at least some benefit to the rightward shift of the Midwestern states. While Illinois and possibly Minnesota are probably going to be tough to take out of the Democratic column, I think that the rest of the states in the region are fair game and would be of benefit to the GOP's electoral college count. Yes, the Midwest as a whole is losing population, but I don't think that its numbers in the electoral college are going to collapse so much that the states in this area wouldn't be helpful to either party that manages to win them.

[illegaloperation]

I do agree that Republicans have a problem in some Southern states, but don't think that Georgia is going to be a major issue for quite some time. Nevertheless, it appears that there is at least some benefit to the rightward shift of the Midwestern states. While Illinois and possibly Minnesota are probably going to be tough to take out of the Democratic column, I think that the rest of the states in the region are fair game and would be of benefit to the GOP's electoral college count. Yes, the Midwest as a whole is losing population, but I don't think that its numbers in the electoral college are going to collapse so much that the states in this area wouldn't be helpful to either party that manages to win them.

So if we take the Mid western states (not including the great plain states) and subtract Minnesota and Illinois, we are left with the same traditional battleground states Republicans competed for plus Michigan.

And of cause Obama performed better in Georgia than Romney performed in Michigan.

[Never]

I do agree that Republicans have a problem in some Southern states, but don't think that Georgia is going to be a major issue for quite some time. Nevertheless, it appears that there is at least some benefit to the rightward shift of the Midwestern states. While Illinois and possibly Minnesota are probably going to be tough to take out of the Democratic column, I think that the rest of the states in the region are fair game and would be of benefit to the GOP's electoral college count. Yes, the Midwest as a whole is losing population, but I don't think that its numbers in the electoral college are going to collapse so much that the states in this area wouldn't be helpful to either party that manages to win them.

So if we take the Mid western states (not including the great plain states) and subtract Minnesota and Illinois, we are left with the same traditional battleground states Republicans competed for plus Michigan.

And of cause Obama performed better in Georgia than Romney performed in Michigan.

Yes, the Republicans have competed for all of those Midwestern states in recent elections, but they haven't won all of them in one fell swoop, which could happen in the future. That's a major difference. Also, Georgia is not as elastic as Michigan. I'm sure that Democrats have a high floor in Georgia due to metro Atlanta, but it is not enough for them to win, especially because Atlanta's own suburbs are particularly Republican compared to the suburbs of other major cities. We also have to remember that "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" Romney probably wasn't the best Republican candidate for Michigan. In this light, Obama winning 45% of the vote in Georgia versus Romney winning 44% in Michigan in 2012 does not tell us everything about those two states.

[Bojack Horseman]

They have the House (and would regardless of gerrymandering, due to Democrats living in more urban, condensed congressional districts than the typical Republican),

Actually, a million more people voted for a Democratic House candidate than a Republican in 2012, and if we'd had the same districts as we'd had in 2010, the House would be Democratic and I can guarantee you the economy would be recovering faster, as the House wouldn't be doing absolutely nothing. The GOP only has a chance of taking back the Senate because most of the seats up for election are in red states: where all a Republican has to do is put up a picture of Obama and their racist constituency will go flocking to the polls out of their sheer hatred for Barack Obama.

[Never]

They have the House (and would regardless of gerrymandering, due to Democrats living in more urban, condensed congressional districts than the typical Republican),

Actually, a million more people voted for a Democratic House candidate than a Republican in 2012, and if we'd had the same districts as we'd had in 2010, the House would be Democratic and I can guarantee you the economy would be recovering faster, as the House wouldn't be doing absolutely nothing. The GOP only has a chance of taking back the Senate because most of the seats up for election are in red states: where all a Republican has to do is put up a picture of Obama and their racist constituency will go flocking to the polls out of their sheer hatred for Barack Obama.

I know that we are really getting off topic here, but I will still respond to the points that you addressed. The House of Representatives would be more Democratic right now if the same districts as 2010 were in place, but they wouldn't have control. In all likelihood, they would have won seven more seats than they have now, which is not enough to make Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House. Even if the Democrats controlled the House, I don't know whether we can say one way or another if that would benefit the economy. Sure, more bills would be passed, but that might not translate into much. Many of the competitive Senate seats this cycle are in Republican states, but it is not like the Democrats have no chance of winning those seats. Even though I think that Sens. Mark Pryor, Mary Landrieu, and Kay Hagan will probably lose in November, it is not like they are completely doomed. They are still holding their own in the polls despite the overall disapproval of President Obama. It's not a new thing for Republicans to dislike a Democratic President. Many in my party loathed Bill Clinton while he was in office, despite the fact that he is a white Southerner. Furthermore, many Republicans disliked Hillary with a passion, and you don't really see that with Michelle Obama. I for one find her to be an excellent First Lady, despite the fact that her and I would surely disagree on most political issues.

[Rockefeller GOP]

They have the House (and would regardless of gerrymandering, due to Democrats living in more urban, condensed congressional districts than the typical Republican),

Actually, a million more people voted for a Democratic House candidate than a Republican in 2012, and if we'd had the same districts as we'd had in 2010, the House would be Democratic and I can guarantee you the economy would be recovering faster, as the House wouldn't be doing absolutely nothing. The GOP only has a chance of taking back the Senate because most of the seats up for election are in red states: where all a Republican has to do is put up a picture of Obama and their racist constituency will go flocking to the polls out of their sheer hatred for Barack Obama.

This is such a stupid post.  If you don't think there are racist Democrats, then wow.

[DS0816]

I'll put it this way: If we were to see a Democratic presidential landslide resulting in the carriage of 49 states (plus District of Columbia), the one holdout would be Oklahoma.

[Del Tachi]

I'll put it this way: If we were to see a Democratic presidential landslide resulting in the carriage of 49 states (plus District of Columbia), the one holdout would be Oklahoma.

Except that Oklahoma isn't really trending R.

The best answers for this question would be Arkansas and West Virginia. 

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Yes: most of the Upper South has been trending R since 2000.