When does Vermont vote to the right of Texas?

[Virginiá]

In the short term, I think Republicans will adapt in any and all ways to keep Texas.  It's too big and too valuable.  What that means ideologically is debatable, but I don't think they will simply allow it to slip away ala Virginia.  With that said, I think our two party system is here to stay, and if the GOP lost Texas, it'd be forced to make gains in other, equally populous areas of the country to stay alive, so it could be interesting.

Would they, though? This behavior suggests some sort of conscious, well-planned and well-executed strategy, and it also assumes they know what they need to do to actually keep Texas, which isn't guaranteed. They could try and just as easily fail.

Given what we're seeing with Republicans and their infighting, and the establishment's inability to control their party, it is hardly guaranteed that they can make the changes necessary. Those changes might necessitate eating a lot of electoral losses over a short/medium-term time span, all while leagues of voices within try to push them in different directions. I mean, right now, they can't perform the basics tasks of governing even when they have unified control.

Personally, I'm not really sold that parties can control their ultimate fates, only guide it on the margins. Even if they know what to do, it isn't assured they can do it.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

In the short term, I think Republicans will adapt in any and all ways to keep Texas.  It's too big and too valuable.  What that means ideologically is debatable, but I don't think they will simply allow it to slip away ala Virginia.  With that said, I think our two party system is here to stay, and if the GOP lost Texas, it'd be forced to make gains in other, equally populous areas of the country to stay alive, so it could be interesting.

Would they, though? This behavior suggests some sort of conscious, well-planned and well-executed strategy, and it also assumes they know what they need to do to actually keep Texas, which isn't guaranteed. They could try and just as easily fail.

Given what we're seeing with Republicans and their infighting, and the establishment's inability to control their party, it is hardly guaranteed that they can make the changes necessary. Those changes might necessitate eating a lot of electoral losses over a short/medium-term time span, all while leagues of voices within try to push them in different directions. I mean, right now, they can't perform the basics tasks of governing even when they have unified control.

Personally, I'm not really sold that parties can control their ultimate fates, only guide it on the margins. Even if they know what to do, it isn't assured they can do it.

A party being governed from a convention hall or a backeook might have been possible in the pre-1972 days, but outside of external trends or internal movements, parties are at the mercy of the potentially schizophrenic of both their voters and their officeholders. 

[RINO Tom]

In the short term, I think Republicans will adapt in any and all ways to keep Texas.  It's too big and too valuable.  What that means ideologically is debatable, but I don't think they will simply allow it to slip away ala Virginia.  With that said, I think our two party system is here to stay, and if the GOP lost Texas, it'd be forced to make gains in other, equally populous areas of the country to stay alive, so it could be interesting.

Would they, though? This behavior suggests some sort of conscious, well-planned and well-executed strategy, and it also assumes they know what they need to do to actually keep Texas, which isn't guaranteed. They could try and just as easily fail.

Given what we're seeing with Republicans and their infighting, and the establishment's inability to control their party, it is hardly guaranteed that they can make the changes necessary. Those changes might necessitate eating a lot of electoral losses over a short/medium-term time span, all while leagues of voices within try to push them in different directions. I mean, right now, they can't perform the basics tasks of governing even when they have unified control.

Personally, I'm not really sold that parties can control their ultimate fates, only guide it on the margins. Even if they know what to do, it isn't assured they can do it.

Well, all I meant is that they'd try.  Obviously, a party is the sum of its voters' ideologies at the end of the day, but leadership does have a role to play in party direction.  Something as simple as pressuring young Republican clubs to take a more libertarian feel on or actively recruiting more technocratic candidates is going to make SOME difference.  I guess what I'm saying is that the establishment will do everything it CAN to never let the GOP go full populist (which, again, despite the fantasies of both loyal "Trumpists" and some elitist Democrats, Trump's GOP isn't even CLOSE to).

[Strudelcutie4427]

When everyone in texas moves somewhere else besides people in Austin

[Blackacre]

To answer the question, probably never to be honest. Texas is a gigantic state with some very conservative regions and that won't go away. It's harder for a party to get the kind of margins you see in Vermont in a larger state. Plus, given the reason why Vermont went Dem, I don't see it shifting to the center anytime soon. The people didn't change their minds; the electorate radically changed instead.

[Person Man]

Hopefully never, but my guess is it will happen in the 2040s.

LOL, why do you have a vested interest in this not ever happening...?

Not because I dislike Vermont, but it'd be a shame for the GOP to lose TX and/or see it voting to the left of VT. Texas has been one of the most loyal states to the Republican Party, and I hope that doesn't change any time soon.

In the short term, I think Republicans will adapt in any and all ways to keep Texas.  It's too big and too valuable.  What that means ideologically is debatable, but I don't think they will simply allow it to slip away ala Virginia.  With that said, I think our two party system is here to stay, and if the GOP lost Texas, it'd be forced to make gains in other, equally populous areas of the country to stay alive, so it could be interesting.

It already is in the rust belt. They had to adopt when they lost California, right?

[PoliticalShelter]

Hopefully never, but my guess is it will happen in the 2040s.

LOL, why do you have a vested interest in this not ever happening...?

Not because I dislike Vermont, but it'd be a shame for the GOP to lose TX and/or see it voting to the left of VT. Texas has been one of the most loyal states to the Republican Party, and I hope that doesn't change any time soon.

In the short term, I think Republicans will adapt in any and all ways to keep Texas.  It's too big and too valuable.  What that means ideologically is debatable, but I don't think they will simply allow it to slip away ala Virginia.  With that said, I think our two party system is here to stay, and if the GOP lost Texas, it'd be forced to make gains in other, equally populous areas of the country to stay alive, so it could be interesting.

It already is in the rust belt. They had to adopt when they lost California, right?

They can only win the electoral college by a modest margin even when they win Texas and sweep the Midwest. The only way the GOP could ever let go Texas was if they could start winning in the northeast + Pacific Northwest.

[GlobeSoc]

I don't see it happening in this alignment(Vermont whites are too cosmopolitan/wealthy/college educated for that), but this could happen in a situation where wealthy whites trend gop for a while and hispanics start turning out in Texas. It would take a while, and I do think it will happen; if you look at my county map over in BTM you'd notice that by the 2030's it's in the process of happening but hasn't quite come to fruition yet.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

I don't see it happening in this alignment(Vermont whites are too cosmopolitan/wealthy/college educated for that), but this could happen in a situation where wealthy whites trend gop for a while and hispanics start turning out in Texas. It would take a while, and I do think it will happen; if you look at my county map over in BTM you'd notice that by the 2030's it's in the process of happening but hasn't quite come to fruition yet.

You have a link to that county map?

[GlobeSoc]

I don't see it happening in this alignment(Vermont whites are too cosmopolitan/wealthy/college educated for that), but this could happen in a situation where wealthy whites trend gop for a while and hispanics start turning out in Texas. It would take a while, and I do think it will happen; if you look at my county map over in BTM you'd notice that by the 2030's it's in the process of happening but hasn't quite come to fruition yet.

You have a link to that county map?

I haven't had the time for it lately but I'm hoping to release an update of 1-2 deep south states tonight, not sure which to fill in.

[diptheriadan]

I don't see it happening in this alignment(Vermont whites are too cosmopolitan/wealthy/college educated for that), but this could happen in a situation where wealthy whites trend gop for a while and hispanics start turning out in Texas. It would take a while, and I do think it will happen; if you look at my county map over in BTM you'd notice that by the 2030's it's in the process of happening but hasn't quite come to fruition yet.

You have a link to that county map?

I haven't had the time for it lately but I'm hoping to release an update of 1-2 deep south states tonight, not sure which to fill in.

Please do Tennessee.

[GlobeSoc]

I don't see it happening in this alignment(Vermont whites are too cosmopolitan/wealthy/college educated for that), but this could happen in a situation where wealthy whites trend gop for a while and hispanics start turning out in Texas. It would take a while, and I do think it will happen; if you look at my county map over in BTM you'd notice that by the 2030's it's in the process of happening but hasn't quite come to fruition yet.

You have a link to that county map?

I haven't had the time for it lately but I'm hoping to release an update of 1-2 deep south states tonight, not sure which to fill in.

Please do Tennessee.

I'll do Tennessee(Although it's not a deep south state) and Louisiana

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

I don't see it happening in this alignment(Vermont whites are too cosmopolitan/wealthy/college educated for that), but this could happen in a situation where wealthy whites trend gop for a while and hispanics start turning out in Texas. It would take a while, and I do think it will happen; if you look at my county map over in BTM you'd notice that by the 2030's it's in the process of happening but hasn't quite come to fruition yet.

You have a link to that county map?

I haven't had the time for it lately but I'm hoping to release an update of 1-2 deep south states tonight, not sure which to fill in.

This is absolutely fascinating, what is your reasoning behind the results shown here?

[GlobeSoc]

I don't see it happening in this alignment(Vermont whites are too cosmopolitan/wealthy/college educated for that), but this could happen in a situation where wealthy whites trend gop for a while and hispanics start turning out in Texas. It would take a while, and I do think it will happen; if you look at my county map over in BTM you'd notice that by the 2030's it's in the process of happening but hasn't quite come to fruition yet.

You have a link to that county map?

I haven't had the time for it lately but I'm hoping to release an update of 1-2 deep south states tonight, not sure which to fill in.

This is absolutely fascinating, what is your reasoning behind the results shown here?

Poor whites trend d, poor minorities stagnate but turn out at higher rate(making poor minority areas trend d), affluent whites and minorities trend r.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

I don't see it happening in this alignment(Vermont whites are too cosmopolitan/wealthy/college educated for that), but this could happen in a situation where wealthy whites trend gop for a while and hispanics start turning out in Texas. It would take a while, and I do think it will happen; if you look at my county map over in BTM you'd notice that by the 2030's it's in the process of happening but hasn't quite come to fruition yet.

You have a link to that county map?

I haven't had the time for it lately but I'm hoping to release an update of 1-2 deep south states tonight, not sure which to fill in.

This is absolutely fascinating, what is your reasoning behind the results shown here?

Poor whites trend d, poor minorities stagnate but turn out at higher rate(making poor minority areas trend d), affluent whites and minorities trend r.

This is actually a very plausible realignment scenario, much better than a lot of the bizarre realignments that are talked about on here. I would love to see the results for the 7 states you didn't do yet, as well.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

I don't see it happening in this alignment(Vermont whites are too cosmopolitan/wealthy/college educated for that), but this could happen in a situation where wealthy whites trend gop for a while and hispanics start turning out in Texas. It would take a while, and I do think it will happen; if you look at my county map over in BTM you'd notice that by the 2030's it's in the process of happening but hasn't quite come to fruition yet.

You have a link to that county map?

I haven't had the time for it lately but I'm hoping to release an update of 1-2 deep south states tonight, not sure which to fill in.

Do you have state PVI's?

[GlobeSoc]

I don't see it happening in this alignment(Vermont whites are too cosmopolitan/wealthy/college educated for that), but this could happen in a situation where wealthy whites trend gop for a while and hispanics start turning out in Texas. It would take a while, and I do think it will happen; if you look at my county map over in BTM you'd notice that by the 2030's it's in the process of happening but hasn't quite come to fruition yet.

You have a link to that county map?

I haven't had the time for it lately but I'm hoping to release an update of 1-2 deep south states tonight, not sure which to fill in.

Do you have state PVI's?

No, not yet. I'm waiting to do all 50 states, rejigger it to make sure it's a tied map, and only then post statewide estimates

[GlobeSoc]

^Missoula County wouldn't vote Republican in this kind of realignment. If anything, I could see it being even more Democratic than it already is.

I wasn't certain about it, but it's lean R even when the surroundings are safe/likely R.

In that alignment, the GOP would have three main wings:

-A Rocky Mountain libertarian wing. The least 'moderate' of the three wings, extreme libertarians. This wing is probably the most consistently GOP of the three wings.
-A Cosmopolitan libertarian wing, which is a touch right of this alignment's overton window. Likely to bolt at the drop of a hat, but votes R with greater frequency in each cycle.
-A deep south 'red dog' wing. This wing is slowly falling apart, but these are moderate populists who are trying to delay the collapse of the southern GOP as long as possible.

[Blackacre]

^Missoula County wouldn't vote Republican in this kind of realignment. If anything, I could see it being even more Democratic than it already is.

I wasn't certain about it, but it's lean R even when the surroundings are safe/likely R.

In that alignment, the GOP would have three main wings:

-A Rocky Mountain libertarian wing. The least 'moderate' of the three wings, extreme libertarians. This wing is probably the most consistently GOP of the three wings.
-A Cosmopolitan libertarian wing, which is a touch right of this alignment's overton window. Likely to bolt at the drop of a hat, but votes R with greater frequency in each cycle.
-A deep south 'red dog' wing. This wing is slowly falling apart, but these are moderate populists who are trying to delay the collapse of the southern GOP as long as possible.

- I imagine the rocky mountain wing might be a little proud of the fact that it's the oldest wing? I can see the Oklahoma or North Dakota GOP scoff at the Republicans Michigan and Virginia send to DC
- what do you mean when you say they bolt at the drop of a hat? Im slightly confused.
- the third wing better call themselves the Red Bulls

[GlobeSoc]

^Missoula County wouldn't vote Republican in this kind of realignment. If anything, I could see it being even more Democratic than it already is.

I wasn't certain about it, but it's lean R even when the surroundings are safe/likely R.

In that alignment, the GOP would have three main wings:

-A Rocky Mountain libertarian wing. The least 'moderate' of the three wings, extreme libertarians. This wing is probably the most consistently GOP of the three wings.
-A Cosmopolitan libertarian wing, which is a touch right of this alignment's overton window. Likely to bolt at the drop of a hat, but votes R with greater frequency in each cycle.
-A deep south 'red dog' wing. This wing is slowly falling apart, but these are moderate populists who are trying to delay the collapse of the southern GOP as long as possible.

- I imagine the rocky mountain wing might be a little proud of the fact that it's the oldest wing? I can see the Oklahoma or North Dakota GOP scoff at the Republicans Michigan and Virginia send to DC
- what do you mean when you say they bolt at the drop of a hat? Im slightly confused.
- the third wing better call themselves the Red Bulls

They're the wing that is most fragile for them. This wing's crossover will keep the Midatlantic+PNW dems alive downballot, among other effects.

[Blackacre]

^Missoula County wouldn't vote Republican in this kind of realignment. If anything, I could see it being even more Democratic than it already is.

I wasn't certain about it, but it's lean R even when the surroundings are safe/likely R.

In that alignment, the GOP would have three main wings:

-A Rocky Mountain libertarian wing. The least 'moderate' of the three wings, extreme libertarians. This wing is probably the most consistently GOP of the three wings.
-A Cosmopolitan libertarian wing, which is a touch right of this alignment's overton window. Likely to bolt at the drop of a hat, but votes R with greater frequency in each cycle.
-A deep south 'red dog' wing. This wing is slowly falling apart, but these are moderate populists who are trying to delay the collapse of the southern GOP as long as possible.

- I imagine the rocky mountain wing might be a little proud of the fact that it's the oldest wing? I can see the Oklahoma or North Dakota GOP scoff at the Republicans Michigan and Virginia send to DC
- what do you mean when you say they bolt at the drop of a hat? Im slightly confused.
- the third wing better call themselves the Red Bulls

They're the wing that is most fragile for them. This wing's crossover will keep the Midatlantic+PNW dems alive downballot, among other effects.

Ooohh, they're the ticket-splitters!

[Skill and Chance]

How about a Republican landslide circa 2040 where they get like 70% of the white vote nationwide but still only get 35-40% of the Hispanic vote?  The Republican would win both states, but they take Vermont by 15% and only take Texas by 5-10%?.