I could see the upper south being more D than New England in 20 years

[Non Swing Voter]

By upper south I mean the border mid-atlantic region (Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland area).

I could see a scenario where D's win on all social issues - abortion, gay marriage, gun control.  Becoming non-issues, fiscal responsibility becomes more important.  States like CT, MA, NH, ME still vote democrat but just barely.  States like VA, NC, MD vote very D based mostly on demographics.

[Vega]

Maryland is already very Democratic.

[Antonio the Sixth]

States like CT, MA, NH, ME still vote democrat but just barely.

lolno

[All Along The Watchtower]

Massachusetts is "just barely" Democratic?


................

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The high number of Independents in New England and willingness to elect GOP Governors until very recently, combined with a situation described where social issues are no longer on the table, I don't think it far fetched for the GOP to regain some lost ground there.

[Mr. Illini]

Social issues will never be a "non-issue" so long as humans are humans. They will simply change issues. For example, one could have said that "social issues will be a non-issue when racial segregation is over."

New England will remain one of the most liberal regions of the country. However that fits into the party paradigm, so be it, but their liberal culture will remain.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Social issues will never be a "non-issue" so long as humans are humans. They will simply change issues. For example, one could have said that "social issues will be a non-issue when racial segregation is over."

New England will remain one of the most liberal regions of the country. However that fits into the party paradigm, so be it, but their liberal culture will remain.

Possibly, but New England has not always been the most liberal region.

[sdu754]

I don't see Democrats winning on gun control & abortion in Virginia & North Carolina. The country has been becoming more pro life over the years. Tennessee would be considered the other upper south state, not Maryland.

[TJ in Oregon]

I don't see Democrats winning on gun control & abortion in Virginia & North Carolina. The country has been becoming more pro life over the years. Tennessee would be considered the other upper south state, not Maryland.

I wish I could agree with you, but I don't; abortion as an issue is incredibly static:



I mean, I guess that has a trend line of nonzero slope, but man, it's hard to really be sure anything is actually changing.

Regardless, with NOVA increasingly becoming a higher fraction of Virginia's population, I have difficulty seeing how the GOP can stay competitive there beyond the next decade. Far too many people in the DC suburbs have government jobs for the GOP to appeal to them even if it takes a libertarian turn. I also don't see a cultural conservative shift happening in the DC metro area. I just don't see a reason to think the Republicans will be able to win enough voters there to keep Virginia in play.

North Carolina on the other hand is a different story. The Democrats obviously do have the wind at their backs right now, but I can at least see how the Republicans could be able to appeal to upper class suburban voters in the growing research triangle, as opposed to DC. The Republicans also have a stronger base in the rest of the state in NC than VA.

As to the question in the thread, it isn't altogether impossible to imaging New England trending somewhat toward the GOP even though it is hard to see it actually voting for them. I think it is possible that CT or MA could be more Republican than VA in 20 years but not more Republican than NC. In any case, I still doubt MA or CT will be actually be voting for the GOP in a non-blow out election any time soon.

[Adam Griffin]

Massachusetts is "just barely" Democratic?


................

I think he phrased it poorly; I believe he was referencing what it'd be like in 20 years.

I tend to agree somewhat with this; there are long-term issues that could very well push New England back into the arms of the Republican Party, but the Democratic Party will have to become majority-minority and the shedding of crazy socon values will occur before it happens.

Virginia, Maryland and North Carolina will by that point (assuming current trends) be very Democratic states. I think Virginia will be how Maryland is today within 10 years or so.

[Skill and Chance]

Maryland is already more D than any New England state other than Rhode Island.  Virginia is quickly becoming an extension of Maryland and I could envision it ending up in 60% generic D territory like present day MD in the 2030's.  As far as NC moving left of New England, that's much harder to believe.  What makes New England unusually D is a mix of social libertarianism and economic justice Catholicism.  Social issues dominate in VT, NH, and CT with ME and RI voting on economic issues.  MA has both factions with social issues becoming more dominant over time.  I don't think New England will move as a group going forward.  I could see a more libertarian GOP flipping NH back and gaining ground in the NY and Boston suburbs, but I could also see a populist GOP slowly winning over ME and RI and some parts of MA.   

[sdu754]

I don't see Democrats winning on gun control & abortion in Virginia & North Carolina. The country has been becoming more pro life over the years. Tennessee would be considered the other upper south state, not Maryland.

I wish I could agree with you, but I don't; abortion as an issue is incredibly static:



I mean, I guess that has a trend line of nonzero slope, but man, it's hard to really be sure anything is actually changing.

Regardless, with NOVA increasingly becoming a higher fraction of Virginia's population, I have difficulty seeing how the GOP can stay competitive there beyond the next decade. Far too many people in the DC suburbs have government jobs for the GOP to appeal to them even if it takes a libertarian turn. I also don't see a cultural conservative shift happening in the DC metro area. I just don't see a reason to think the Republicans will be able to win enough voters there to keep Virginia in play.

North Carolina on the other hand is a different story. The Democrats obviously do have the wind at their backs right now, but I can at least see how the Republicans could be able to appeal to upper class suburban voters in the growing research triangle, as opposed to DC. The Republicans also have a stronger base in the rest of the state in NC than VA.

As to the question in the thread, it isn't altogether impossible to imaging New England trending somewhat toward the GOP even though it is hard to see it actually voting for them. I think it is possible that CT or MA could be more Republican than VA in 20 years but not more Republican than NC. In any case, I still doubt MA or CT will be actually be voting for the GOP in a non-blow out election any time soon.

if you look at the graph, it's not a major change, but it is moving slowly towards pro-choice (which is what I meant in the original post). From 2001 to 2012, the percentage that said "always illegal" went from 15% to 20 %. "Always Legal" went from 26% to 25%. Granted there were variances in the graph, I'd still say there's a move towards pro-life. Without a breakdown of the "sometimes legal" it's hard to demonstrate. A lot of people believe it should only be legal in cases of rape, incest & the health of the mother, how did those numbers change? The graph doesn't answer this question. Most people who believe it should only be legal in cases of rape, incest & the health of the mother would generally consider themselves pro-life.

The point I was making is that voters won't vote purely on social issues if someone ran on a pro-abortion Anti-gun platform.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The GOP could conceivably take Connecticut, with the right candidate. That state strikes me as somewhere that would easily go Conservative in UK elections - it kind of reminds me of the Home counties that surround London.

[Skill and Chance]

The GOP could conceivably take Connecticut, with the right candidate. That state strikes me as somewhere that would easily go Conservative in UK elections - it kind of reminds me of the Home counties that surround London.

On paper yes, but people who make $200K and still vote Dem usually have a very good reason for voting Dem:

1. Very pro-choice
2. Very pro-gay rights
3. Guilt based on system being rigged in their favor
4. Environmentalist

Do you see any outreach from the GOP on any of these issues right now?  They aren't campaigning for economically secure War on Women/Global Warming voters.  Flipping CT is equivalent to flipping the wealthy parts of the Bay Area IMO.  Romney was probably the ideal person to do it and he only held Obama under 60%.

[Del Tachi]

I mean, I seriously doubt any casual political observer of the 1940s would have guess the American South to be among the Republicans' strongest regions in 1972.

30 years from now is an eternity and politics, and there is no shortage of things that could happen between now to then to flip the political allegiances of any particular region of the country.

[Skill and Chance]

I mean, I seriously doubt any casual political observer of the 1940s would have guess the American South to be among the Republicans' strongest regions in 1972.

30 years from now is an eternity and politics, and there is no shortage of things that could happen between now to then to flip the political allegiances of any particular region of the country.

Well I think a political scientist watching 1948, with Truman supporting civil rights and Thurmond carrying several Southern states might have foreseen the switch, or perhaps predicted a permanent Southern 3rd party.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Everything's possible, but I can't see abortion and gun control ever going away.

[Del Tachi]

I mean, I seriously doubt any casual political observer of the 1940s would have guess the American South to be among the Republicans' strongest regions in 1972.

30 years from now is an eternity and politics, and there is no shortage of things that could happen between now to then to flip the political allegiances of any particular region of the country.

Well I think a political scientist watching 1948, with Truman supporting civil rights and Thurmond carrying several Southern states might have foreseen the switch, or perhaps predicted a permanent Southern 3rd party.

True, but those things are not in play in regards to this question.  There is no "writing on the wall" to suggest anything is going to be shaking-up the current political paradigm anytime soon.

[Adam Griffin]

I mean, I seriously doubt any casual political observer of the 1940s would have guess the American South to be among the Republicans' strongest regions in 1972.

30 years from now is an eternity and politics, and there is no shortage of things that could happen between now to then to flip the political allegiances of any particular region of the country.

Well I think a political scientist watching 1948, with Truman supporting civil rights and Thurmond carrying several Southern states might have foreseen the switch, or perhaps predicted a permanent Southern 3rd party.

True, but those things are not in play in regards to this question.  There is no "writing on the wall" to suggest anything is going to be shaking-up the current political paradigm anytime soon.

Sure there is - the fact that the South is rapidly browning and the Republican Party is still pushing the pedal to the metal when it comes to pissing 80%+ of minorities off foretells of a near-solid Democratic voting bloc of Atlantic states in the near future.

In exchange, this will cause an increased amount of racial animus towards Democrats among whites (remember that the Reagan coalition was built upon coded racial undertones being incorporated into economic messaging). There's a ton of latent and/or subconscious racism through the North and Midwest; if somehow the Democratic Party becomes majority-minority in the near-future (it was about 35% minority in 2012), there's going to be a huge opening in several of those states. Republicans will begin their "Northern Strategy", if you will.

[hopper]

I could see the GOP making inroads in RI and CT in Presidential Elections. CT isn't really growing in Hartford County either where CT is urban where the City of Hartford is. Stamford and Norwalk aren't really urban either and Fairfield County is the fastest growing county in CT in 2011-2012. I was on vacation there a couple of years ago in Stamford and Norwalk went to go visit a few places.

[Del Tachi]

I mean, I seriously doubt any casual political observer of the 1940s would have guess the American South to be among the Republicans' strongest regions in 1972.

30 years from now is an eternity and politics, and there is no shortage of things that could happen between now to then to flip the political allegiances of any particular region of the country.

Well I think a political scientist watching 1948, with Truman supporting civil rights and Thurmond carrying several Southern states might have foreseen the switch, or perhaps predicted a permanent Southern 3rd party.

True, but those things are not in play in regards to this question.  There is no "writing on the wall" to suggest anything is going to be shaking-up the current political paradigm anytime soon.

Sure there is - the fact that the South is rapidly browning and the Republican Party is still pushing the pedal to the metal when it comes to pissing 80%+ of minorities off foretells of a near-solid Democratic voting bloc of Atlantic states in the near future.

In exchange, this will cause an increased amount of racial animus towards Democrats among whites (remember that the Reagan coalition was built upon coded racial undertones being incorporated into economic messaging). There's a ton of latent and/or subconscious racism through the North and Midwest; if somehow the Democratic Party becomes majority-minority in the near-future (it was about 35% minority in 2012), there's going to be a huge opening in several of those states. Republicans will begin their "Northern Strategy", if you will.

There really isn't any evidence to support the claim that the "browning" of the Democratic Party will turn-off Northeastern Whites. 

[hopper]

I mean, I seriously doubt any casual political observer of the 1940s would have guess the American South to be among the Republicans' strongest regions in 1972.

30 years from now is an eternity and politics, and there is no shortage of things that could happen between now to then to flip the political allegiances of any particular region of the country.

Well I think a political scientist watching 1948, with Truman supporting civil rights and Thurmond carrying several Southern states might have foreseen the switch, or perhaps predicted a permanent Southern 3rd party.

True, but those things are not in play in regards to this question.  There is no "writing on the wall" to suggest anything is going to be shaking-up the current political paradigm anytime soon.

Sure there is - the fact that the South is rapidly browning and the Republican Party is still pushing the pedal to the metal when it comes to pissing 80%+ of minorities off foretells of a near-solid Democratic voting bloc of Atlantic states in the near future.

In exchange, this will cause an increased amount of racial animus towards Democrats among whites (remember that the Reagan coalition was built upon coded racial undertones being incorporated into economic messaging). There's a ton of latent and/or subconscious racism through the North and Midwest; if somehow the Democratic Party becomes majority-minority in the near-future (it was about 35% minority in 2012), there's going to be a huge opening in several of those states. Republicans will begin their "Northern Strategy", if you will.

There really isn't any evidence to support the claim that the "browning" of the Democratic Party will turn-off Northeastern Whites. 

It really has nothing to with "browning" though. Just geography.

[Mr. Illini]

The GOP could conceivably take Connecticut, with the right candidate. That state strikes me as somewhere that would easily go Conservative in UK elections - it kind of reminds me of the Home counties that surround London.

On paper yes, but people who make $200K and still vote Dem usually have a very good reason for voting Dem:

1. Very pro-choice
2. Very pro-gay rights
3. Guilt based on system being rigged in their favor
4. Environmentalist

This is why New England is so liberal, and it is why it will remain so.

[Napoleon]

The GOP could conceivably take Connecticut, with the right candidate. That state strikes me as somewhere that would easily go Conservative in UK elections - it kind of reminds me of the Home counties that surround London.

Yeah...I don't think so.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Abortion has and will continue to remain static, and the Dems are plainly losing on gun control.