Unknown unknowns...

[หมูเด้ง]

Do you think they are any trends, not getting much attention right now, that might upend or strengthen conditional wisdom about demographics and party strength?

Some ideas-

- New large cities being built in currently undeveloped areas that are basically a conglomeration of bedroom communities surrounding a CBD. Result: places that should be Democratic  are actually Republican. See Mesa, Arizona.

- Diverse low income voters moving into rural, inland areas once they realize that all their income is going to rent. This could allow for liberal upsets in traditionally conservative places. See places like Fergusson, MO.

- Energy bonanzas that slow or reverse D trends in emerging or traditional swing states as Republican miners make land grabs. Colorado? Dakotas? Pennsylvania/Ohio?

- New industries being attracted to areas first described in the first scenario because they are so cheap. It attracts a lot of Creative Class and Transhumanist types. Maybe Democrats eventually start to do better in "Republican Cities". Austin,TX , Iowa?

- Of course there are old memes from the Bush years where Republicans become entrenched outside of the oldest, largest and most stratified cities because young people, minorities, the educated and the irreligious are eventually cultural and economically "southernized" fast enough that a diverse electorate becomes irrelevant. Florida.

[Mister Mets]

Interesting questions.

One issue is what happens to successful members of groups that support Democrats. They might determine that Republicans are more aligned with their economic interests. In some cases, the success of Democrats on social issues might hurt the party by taking away issues that upper middle class supporters care deeply about.

A related question is whether certain groups will stick with the Democratic party. Single women, Gays, African-Americans, Hispanic Americans, Environmentalists and union workers often have different interests and policy preferences. There may end up being a division.

Republicans have advantages in congressional races. Small states are slightly more Republican, so the composition of the Senate should help the party (Romney won 48% of states, but less than 40 % of electoral votes) . Geographic sorting has made things easier for Republicans in house races. We don't know what the long-term effects of that will be, or how long things will stay that way.

It'll also be interesting to see what happens with young voters as they form their initial political identities. Will they be defined by support of Obama, or opposition to him? What about the next President?

It's also been a while since we've had a President who won by more than ten points. Can that still happen? What will be the circumstances of that?

I'm also interested in what the next presidential elections would show on the third term curse. More elections provide more statistical information. There's been a consistent trend since 1932 in parties peaking and steadily losing support until the party wins. It'll be interesting to see if the next elections continue that, or if things go differently.

[Skill and Chance]

Do you think they are any trends, not getting much attention right now, that might upend or strengthen conditional wisdom about demographics and party strength?

Some ideas-

- New large cities being built in currently undeveloped areas that are basically a conglomeration of bedroom communities surrounding a CBD. Result: places that should be Democratic  are actually Republican. See Mesa, Arizona.

Not sure what you mean by this.

- Diverse low income voters moving into rural, inland areas once they realize that all their income is going to rent. This could allow for liberal upsets in traditionally conservative places. See places like Fergusson, MO.

Definitely a good possibility.  This is currently playing out in the CA Central Valley.  This is probably the best hope for a Dem House majority before 2022.

- Energy bonanzas that slow or reverse D trends in emerging or traditional swing states as Republican miners make land grabs. Colorado? Dakotas? Pennsylvania/Ohio?

The Dem establishment largely seems willing to compromise on natural gas and go after coal.  Wasn't there a last minute compromise on ballot initiatives in CO?  This is part of a realization that winning the hipster vote unanimously gets them nowhere in non-presidential/gubernatorial elections.  There is also a natural coal (R) vs. natural gas (D) dynamic here that could be exploited but thus far hasn't materialized.

- New industries being attracted to areas first described in the first scenario because they are so cheap. It attracts a lot of Creative Class and Transhumanist types. Maybe Democrats eventually start to do better in "Republican Cities". Austin,TX , Iowa?

But location could be driving the creative class phenomenon as much as anything else.  Perhaps high income tech employees lean left because they live where social services and conservation are most sorely needed?  In other words, if Silicon Valley were in Kansas, it would probably spend a lot more time engaging its libertarian side.

- Of course there are old memes from the Bush years where Republicans become entrenched outside of the oldest, largest and most stratified cities because young people, minorities, the educated and the irreligious are eventually cultural and economically "southernized" fast enough that a diverse electorate becomes irrelevant. Florida.

This should be a bigger concern than it is for the left.  The "get 70% of the white vote nationally" strategy doesn't currently work, but it has gotten a lot more viable over the past decade.  If it happened, we could end up with 10-15 70% Dem states and a huge GOP electoral college and senate edge for a long time.  I think Florida is finally too diverse not to keep moving left, but the real problems would be in the Midwest.

[หมูเด้ง]

Do you think they are any trends, not getting much attention right now, that might upend or strengthen conditional wisdom about demographics and party strength?

Some ideas-

- New large cities being built in currently undeveloped areas that are basically a conglomeration of bedroom communities surrounding a CBD. Result: places that should be Democratic  are actually Republican. See Mesa, Arizona.

Not sure what you mean by this.

- Diverse low income voters moving into rural, inland areas once they realize that all their income is going to rent. This could allow for liberal upsets in traditionally conservative places. See places like Fergusson, MO.

Definitely a good possibility.  This is currently playing out in the CA Central Valley.  This is probably the best hope for a Dem House majority before 2022.

- Energy bonanzas that slow or reverse D trends in emerging or traditional swing states as Republican miners make land grabs. Colorado? Dakotas? Pennsylvania/Ohio?

The Dem establishment largely seems willing to compromise on natural gas and go after coal.  Wasn't there a last minute compromise on ballot initiatives in CO?  This is part of a realization that winning the hipster vote unanimously gets them nowhere in non-presidential/gubernatorial elections.  There is also a natural coal (R) vs. natural gas (D) dynamic here that could be exploited but thus far hasn't materialized.

- New industries being attracted to areas first described in the first scenario because they are so cheap. It attracts a lot of Creative Class and Transhumanist types. Maybe Democrats eventually start to do better in "Republican Cities". Austin,TX , Iowa?

But location could be driving the creative class phenomenon as much as anything else.  Perhaps high income tech employees lean left because they live where social services and conservation are most sorely needed?  In other words, if Silicon Valley were in Kansas, it would probably spend a lot more time engaging its libertarian side.

- Of course there are old memes from the Bush years where Republicans become entrenched outside of the oldest, largest and most stratified cities because young people, minorities, the educated and the irreligious are eventually cultural and economically "southernized" fast enough that a diverse electorate becomes irrelevant. Florida.

This should be a bigger concern than it is for the left.  The "get 70% of the white vote nationally" strategy doesn't currently work, but it has gotten a lot more viable over the past decade.  If it happened, we could end up with 10-15 70% Dem states and a huge GOP electoral college and senate edge for a long time.  I think Florida is finally too diverse not to keep moving left, but the real problems would be in the Midwest.

The last one could potentially be the scariest prospect. What does a party that caters to 70% of whites (who are no more than 65% of the population) look like?

[Skill and Chance]

Do you think they are any trends, not getting much attention right now, that might upend or strengthen conditional wisdom about demographics and party strength?

Some ideas-

- New large cities being built in currently undeveloped areas that are basically a conglomeration of bedroom communities surrounding a CBD. Result: places that should be Democratic  are actually Republican. See Mesa, Arizona.

Not sure what you mean by this.

- Diverse low income voters moving into rural, inland areas once they realize that all their income is going to rent. This could allow for liberal upsets in traditionally conservative places. See places like Fergusson, MO.

Definitely a good possibility.  This is currently playing out in the CA Central Valley.  This is probably the best hope for a Dem House majority before 2022.

- Energy bonanzas that slow or reverse D trends in emerging or traditional swing states as Republican miners make land grabs. Colorado? Dakotas? Pennsylvania/Ohio?

The Dem establishment largely seems willing to compromise on natural gas and go after coal.  Wasn't there a last minute compromise on ballot initiatives in CO?  This is part of a realization that winning the hipster vote unanimously gets them nowhere in non-presidential/gubernatorial elections.  There is also a natural coal (R) vs. natural gas (D) dynamic here that could be exploited but thus far hasn't materialized.

- New industries being attracted to areas first described in the first scenario because they are so cheap. It attracts a lot of Creative Class and Transhumanist types. Maybe Democrats eventually start to do better in "Republican Cities". Austin,TX , Iowa?

But location could be driving the creative class phenomenon as much as anything else.  Perhaps high income tech employees lean left because they live where social services and conservation are most sorely needed?  In other words, if Silicon Valley were in Kansas, it would probably spend a lot more time engaging its libertarian side.

- Of course there are old memes from the Bush years where Republicans become entrenched outside of the oldest, largest and most stratified cities because young people, minorities, the educated and the irreligious are eventually cultural and economically "southernized" fast enough that a diverse electorate becomes irrelevant. Florida.

This should be a bigger concern than it is for the left.  The "get 70% of the white vote nationally" strategy doesn't currently work, but it has gotten a lot more viable over the past decade.  If it happened, we could end up with 10-15 70% Dem states and a huge GOP electoral college and senate edge for a long time.  I think Florida is finally too diverse not to keep moving left, but the real problems would be in the Midwest.

The last one could potentially be the scariest prospect. What does a party that caters to 70% of whites (who are no more than 65% of the population) look like?

Probably more moderate on Medicare/social security and gay marriage but more extreme on immigration and generally opposing government aid to people under 65. 

Nate Silver put this cool app together.  You can experiment by gradually dropping the Dem share of the white vote to the high 20's and gradually increasing the Hispanic and Asian share toward 90%.  The electoral college bias flips when Democrats fall below 37% of the white vote.  If you take them down to 30%, it becomes possible for the GOP to win the electoral college with 46-47% of the PV in the 2030's.  There is a line around 34% where Dems have to find a way to win AZ and TX.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/04/30/us/politics/presidential-math-demographics-and-immigration-reform.html?_r=0

[Skill and Chance]

I'd also propose a few other rarely discussed, but possibly very consequential issues:

1. A new social issue that could be the basis for a successful 2004-style Republican campaign.  My best guess for what could do this would be human cloning.  The Catholic vote could move right quickly, bringing the GOP to parity among Hispanic voters.

2. A new farm revolt.  These tend to recur every 40 years or so on the high plains and Midwest. The last one was in the late 80's.  Unlike in the 20th century, the farm states are almost uniformly under GOP control locally, so any resurgence of farm populism would likely be more partisan today.  An influx of white farmers into the Dem coalition would radically shake up the map.

[eric82oslo]

I'd also propose a few other rarely discussed, but possibly very consequential issues:

1. A new social issue that could be the basis for a successful 2004-style Republican campaign.  My best guess for what could do this would be human cloning.  The Catholic vote could move right quickly, bringing the GOP to parity among Hispanic voters.

I don't see how that could become an issue, at least not in my lifetime. I don't think a single person I've ever met has been in favour of human cloning, at least not to my knowledge.

[Indy Texas]

I'd also propose a few other rarely discussed, but possibly very consequential issues:

1. A new social issue that could be the basis for a successful 2004-style Republican campaign.  My best guess for what could do this would be human cloning.  The Catholic vote could move right quickly, bringing the GOP to parity among Hispanic voters.

2. A new farm revolt.  These tend to recur every 40 years or so on the high plains and Midwest. The last one was in the late 80's.  Unlike in the 20th century, the farm states are almost uniformly under GOP control locally, so any resurgence of farm populism would likely be more partisan today.  An influx of white farmers into the Dem coalition would radically shake up the map.

What percentage of the population in those states are actually employed in agriculture and/or own working farms?

[หมูเด้ง]

Needless to say, the future seems terrifying when you talk about race-based voting AND a new abortion or at least gay marriage.

[Skill and Chance]

I'd also propose a few other rarely discussed, but possibly very consequential issues:

1. A new social issue that could be the basis for a successful 2004-style Republican campaign.  My best guess for what could do this would be human cloning.  The Catholic vote could move right quickly, bringing the GOP to parity among Hispanic voters.

2. A new farm revolt.  These tend to recur every 40 years or so on the high plains and Midwest. The last one was in the late 80's.  Unlike in the 20th century, the farm states are almost uniformly under GOP control locally, so any resurgence of farm populism would likely be more partisan today.  An influx of white farmers into the Dem coalition would radically shake up the map.

What percentage of the population in those states are actually employed in agriculture and/or own working farms?

About 1% of the population or ~3 million people nationally, concentrated in those states.  For comparison, though, mining is only about 0.5% and some of that has nothing to do with coal.  Yet look at the effect the coal revolt has had on the senate/electoral college!  Farming is similarly concentrated in small states.

[Skill and Chance]

Needless to say, the future seems terrifying when you talk about race-based voting AND a new abortion or at least gay marriage.

I actually think a new abortion/gay marriage would do a lot to cut off the trend toward ethnic voting.  It would presumably push the non-religious and moderately religious (disproportionately white and well off) further left.

[หมูเด้ง]

Needless to say, the future seems terrifying when you talk about race-based voting AND a new abortion or at least gay marriage.

I actually think a new abortion/gay marriage would do a lot to cut off the trend toward ethnic voting.  It would presumably push the non-religious and moderately religious (disproportionately white and well off) further left.

That might help against that, huh?

[Skill and Chance]

Needless to say, the future seems terrifying when you talk about race-based voting AND a new abortion or at least gay marriage.

I actually think a new abortion/gay marriage would do a lot to cut off the trend toward ethnic voting.  It would presumably push the non-religious and moderately religious (disproportionately white and well off) further left.

That might help against that, huh?

That's what I am thinking.  Also, if climate change got severe enough that the average Joe takes notice, Dems could do a 2004 completely-ignore-the-economy strategy and run on stopping it.  Furthermore, keep in mind that if Obama approval gets much lower, people born in 1996-2000 may end up leaning right when they cast their first vote.  Keep in mind that 1991-95 is already a more moderate cohort than 1985-90.

   

[Mehmentum]

I'd also propose a few other rarely discussed, but possibly very consequential issues:

1. A new social issue that could be the basis for a successful 2004-style Republican campaign.  My best guess for what could do this would be human cloning.  The Catholic vote could move right quickly, bringing the GOP to parity among Hispanic voters.

I don't see how that could become an issue, at least not in my lifetime. I don't think a single person I've ever met has been in favour of human cloning, at least not to my knowledge.

Well, it depends on how you define human cloning. 

If someone took cells from my body and used them to grow a replacement organ for a transplant, that would be human cloning by the scientific definition of cloning, but not the popular perception of it.

[หมูเด้ง]

I'd also propose a few other rarely discussed, but possibly very consequential issues:

1. A new social issue that could be the basis for a successful 2004-style Republican campaign.  My best guess for what could do this would be human cloning.  The Catholic vote could move right quickly, bringing the GOP to parity among Hispanic voters.

I don't see how that could become an issue, at least not in my lifetime. I don't think a single person I've ever met has been in favour of human cloning, at least not to my knowledge.

Well, it depends on how you define human cloning. 

If someone took cells from my body and used them to grow a replacement organ for a transplant, that would be human cloning by the scientific definition of cloning, but not the popular perception of it.

I could see that being the next Stem Cell research. It will be unpopular at first, but will catch on. Its not like abortion, where each side can claim that they are "liberal" and "pro-civil rights".

[eric82oslo]

I'd also propose a few other rarely discussed, but possibly very consequential issues:

1. A new social issue that could be the basis for a successful 2004-style Republican campaign.  My best guess for what could do this would be human cloning.  The Catholic vote could move right quickly, bringing the GOP to parity among Hispanic voters.

I don't see how that could become an issue, at least not in my lifetime. I don't think a single person I've ever met has been in favour of human cloning, at least not to my knowledge.

Well, it depends on how you define human cloning. 

If someone took cells from my body and used them to grow a replacement organ for a transplant, that would be human cloning by the scientific definition of cloning, but not the popular perception of it.

You'd need to be much more than barely religious to oppose such a beneficial advance though, you'd need to be pretty crazy in fact. I couldn't imagine more than at maximum 15-20% of the population not supporting "organ cloning", and then I'm being pretty darn generous (the real numbers are probably more like 3-7%), so hardly what I would call a game-changer. If you label it with some scientific, hard-wired term like stem cell research, surely more would oppose it, but if you explain the true benefits like you did above, hardly anyone would be against it.

[TJ in Oregon]

I'd also propose a few other rarely discussed, but possibly very consequential issues:

1. A new social issue that could be the basis for a successful 2004-style Republican campaign.  My best guess for what could do this would be human cloning.  The Catholic vote could move right quickly, bringing the GOP to parity among Hispanic voters.

I don't see how that could become an issue, at least not in my lifetime. I don't think a single person I've ever met has been in favour of human cloning, at least not to my knowledge.

Well, it depends on how you define human cloning. 

If someone took cells from my body and used them to grow a replacement organ for a transplant, that would be human cloning by the scientific definition of cloning, but not the popular perception of it.

You'd need to be much more than barely religious to oppose such a beneficial advance though, you'd need to be pretty crazy in fact. I couldn't imagine more than at maximum 15-20% of the population not supporting "organ cloning", and then I'm being pretty darn generous (the real numbers are probably more like 3-7%), so hardly what I would call a game-changer. If you label it with some scientific, hard-wired term like stem cell research, surely more would oppose it, but if you explain the true benefits like you did above, hardly anyone would be against it.

If you could take cells from your own body to grow a new organ, I doubt many people would oppose that. If you took an embryo and used it to grow a new organ for yourself, that would face some criticism (which essentially was the stretch goal of embryonic stem cell research to begin with). As you've described it here, it would be analogous to adult stem cell research and few people would oppose it. Most of those who would oppose would only do so because they misunderstood it to be something else entirely.

1. A new social issue that could be the basis for a successful 2004-style Republican campaign.  My best guess for what could do this would be human cloning.  The Catholic vote could move right quickly, bringing the GOP to parity among Hispanic voters.

In order for this to happen it would need to be an issue where the Catholic Church has staked out a well known and largely accepted position before it became an issue. Maybe cloning would be enough but I don't think it would have a big enough backlash. I could be wrong though.

[Skill and Chance]

I'd also propose a few other rarely discussed, but possibly very consequential issues:

1. A new social issue that could be the basis for a successful 2004-style Republican campaign.  My best guess for what could do this would be human cloning.  The Catholic vote could move right quickly, bringing the GOP to parity among Hispanic voters.

I don't see how that could become an issue, at least not in my lifetime. I don't think a single person I've ever met has been in favour of human cloning, at least not to my knowledge.

Well, it depends on how you define human cloning. 

If someone took cells from my body and used them to grow a replacement organ for a transplant, that would be human cloning by the scientific definition of cloning, but not the popular perception of it.

You'd need to be much more than barely religious to oppose such a beneficial advance though, you'd need to be pretty crazy in fact. I couldn't imagine more than at maximum 15-20% of the population not supporting "organ cloning", and then I'm being pretty darn generous (the real numbers are probably more like 3-7%), so hardly what I would call a game-changer. If you label it with some scientific, hard-wired term like stem cell research, surely more would oppose it, but if you explain the true benefits like you did above, hardly anyone would be against it.

If you could take cells from your own body to grow a new organ, I doubt many people would oppose that. If you took an embryo and used it to grow a new organ for yourself, that would face some criticism (which essentially was the stretch goal of embryonic stem cell research to begin with). As you've described it here, it would be analogous to adult stem cell research and few people would oppose it. Most of those who would oppose would only do so because they misunderstood it to be something else entirely.

1. A new social issue that could be the basis for a successful 2004-style Republican campaign.  My best guess for what could do this would be human cloning.  The Catholic vote could move right quickly, bringing the GOP to parity among Hispanic voters.

In order for this to happen it would need to be an issue where the Catholic Church has staked out a well known and largely accepted position before it became an issue. Maybe cloning would be enough but I don't think it would have a big enough backlash. I could be wrong though.

I actually doubt this will happen.  The Catholic Church is presently aligning itself more and more with the left and compromise on family issues.  Perhaps it's also worth considering what a strong religious left would look like in this country?  My best guess is that the South would slip out from under the GOP much sooner, and New England would eventually throw out the Dems.  California and Texas would become more competitive, but probably not flip.

[New_Conservative]

I'd also propose a few other rarely discussed, but possibly very consequential issues:

1. A new social issue that could be the basis for a successful 2004-style Republican campaign.  My best guess for what could do this would be human cloning.  The Catholic vote could move right quickly, bringing the GOP to parity among Hispanic voters.

2. A new farm revolt.  These tend to recur every 40 years or so on the high plains and Midwest. The last one was in the late 80's.  Unlike in the 20th century, the farm states are almost uniformly under GOP control locally, so any resurgence of farm populism would likely be more partisan today.  An influx of white farmers into the Dem coalition would radically shake up the map.

Isn't the GOP already pretty close with Catholic voters? I thought it was like 50/48 in favor of Democrats for Catholics?

[TJ in Oregon]

I'd also propose a few other rarely discussed, but possibly very consequential issues:

1. A new social issue that could be the basis for a successful 2004-style Republican campaign.  My best guess for what could do this would be human cloning.  The Catholic vote could move right quickly, bringing the GOP to parity among Hispanic voters.

2. A new farm revolt.  These tend to recur every 40 years or so on the high plains and Midwest. The last one was in the late 80's.  Unlike in the 20th century, the farm states are almost uniformly under GOP control locally, so any resurgence of farm populism would likely be more partisan today.  An influx of white farmers into the Dem coalition would radically shake up the map.

Isn't the GOP already pretty close with Catholic voters? I thought it was like 50/48 in favor of Democrats for Catholics?

I think he means in this scenario the GOP would win the Catholic vote convincingly rather than a close to 50/50 split.

[Skill and Chance]

I'd also propose a few other rarely discussed, but possibly very consequential issues:

1. A new social issue that could be the basis for a successful 2004-style Republican campaign.  My best guess for what could do this would be human cloning.  The Catholic vote could move right quickly, bringing the GOP to parity among Hispanic voters.

2. A new farm revolt.  These tend to recur every 40 years or so on the high plains and Midwest. The last one was in the late 80's.  Unlike in the 20th century, the farm states are almost uniformly under GOP control locally, so any resurgence of farm populism would likely be more partisan today.  An influx of white farmers into the Dem coalition would radically shake up the map.

Isn't the GOP already pretty close with Catholic voters? I thought it was like 50/48 in favor of Democrats for Catholics?

I think he means in this scenario the GOP would win the Catholic vote convincingly rather than a close to 50/50 split.

Yes, for this case I was imagining the white Catholic vote moving in line with the white Evangelical vote due to some new, powerful social issue. 

In actuality, I think that the white Catholic vote will move noticeably left if and when Republicans get full control and start cutting social programs to the bone.  Also, the Supreme Court comes into play here.  The next president will likely get to appoint successors to Ginsburg, Scalia, Kennedy and maybe Breyer. 

If the next president is a Democrat, that would mean a 6-3 pro-choice SCOTUS with at least 5 of the 6 in that majority being quite young.  Abortion as a political issue would be effectively dead.  However, I'm not sure if Republicans could ever drop abortion from their platform because even a slight moderation of the Evangelical vote would cause huge problems for them in the 2020's South.  Alternatively, if the next president is a Republican, a 6-3 pro-life majority would be likely.  A state sovereignty ruling on abortion would make red/blue polarization even stronger.  A national right to life ruling would be the defining issue of the next several elections and would likely lead to a huge Democratic wave in the first election after the ruling, but with little chance of actually being able to undo it anytime soon. 

[หมูเด้ง]

I'd also propose a few other rarely discussed, but possibly very consequential issues:

1. A new social issue that could be the basis for a successful 2004-style Republican campaign.  My best guess for what could do this would be human cloning.  The Catholic vote could move right quickly, bringing the GOP to parity among Hispanic voters.

2. A new farm revolt.  These tend to recur every 40 years or so on the high plains and Midwest. The last one was in the late 80's.  Unlike in the 20th century, the farm states are almost uniformly under GOP control locally, so any resurgence of farm populism would likely be more partisan today.  An influx of white farmers into the Dem coalition would radically shake up the map.

Isn't the GOP already pretty close with Catholic voters? I thought it was like 50/48 in favor of Democrats for Catholics?

I think he means in this scenario the GOP would win the Catholic vote convincingly rather than a close to 50/50 split.

Yes, for this case I was imagining the white Catholic vote moving in line with the white Evangelical vote due to some new, powerful social issue. 

In actuality, I think that the white Catholic vote will move noticeably left if and when Republicans get full control and start cutting social programs to the bone.  Also, the Supreme Court comes into play here.  The next president will likely get to appoint successors to Ginsburg, Scalia, Kennedy and maybe Breyer. 

If the next president is a Democrat, that would mean a 6-3 pro-choice SCOTUS with at least 5 of the 6 in that majority being quite young.  Abortion as a political issue would be effectively dead.  However, I'm not sure if Republicans could ever drop abortion from their platform because even a slight moderation of the Evangelical vote would cause huge problems for them in the 2020's South.  Alternatively, if the next president is a Republican, a 6-3 pro-life majority would be likely.  A state sovereignty ruling on abortion would make red/blue polarization even stronger.  A national right to life ruling would be the defining issue of the next several elections and would likely lead to a huge Democratic wave in the first election after the ruling, but with little chance of actually being able to undo it anytime soon. 

Pro-choicers would then probably continue to turn out the base and enact legislation to "chip away" at a personhood ruling by making it harder to prosecute personhood violations and allowing things such as "sanctuary cities", subsidized abortion/birth control tourism and the like.

[Skill and Chance]

I'd also propose a few other rarely discussed, but possibly very consequential issues:

1. A new social issue that could be the basis for a successful 2004-style Republican campaign.  My best guess for what could do this would be human cloning.  The Catholic vote could move right quickly, bringing the GOP to parity among Hispanic voters.

2. A new farm revolt.  These tend to recur every 40 years or so on the high plains and Midwest. The last one was in the late 80's.  Unlike in the 20th century, the farm states are almost uniformly under GOP control locally, so any resurgence of farm populism would likely be more partisan today.  An influx of white farmers into the Dem coalition would radically shake up the map.

Isn't the GOP already pretty close with Catholic voters? I thought it was like 50/48 in favor of Democrats for Catholics?

I think he means in this scenario the GOP would win the Catholic vote convincingly rather than a close to 50/50 split.

Yes, for this case I was imagining the white Catholic vote moving in line with the white Evangelical vote due to some new, powerful social issue. 

In actuality, I think that the white Catholic vote will move noticeably left if and when Republicans get full control and start cutting social programs to the bone.  Also, the Supreme Court comes into play here.  The next president will likely get to appoint successors to Ginsburg, Scalia, Kennedy and maybe Breyer. 

If the next president is a Democrat, that would mean a 6-3 pro-choice SCOTUS with at least 5 of the 6 in that majority being quite young.  Abortion as a political issue would be effectively dead.  However, I'm not sure if Republicans could ever drop abortion from their platform because even a slight moderation of the Evangelical vote would cause huge problems for them in the 2020's South.  Alternatively, if the next president is a Republican, a 6-3 pro-life majority would be likely.  A state sovereignty ruling on abortion would make red/blue polarization even stronger.  A national right to life ruling would be the defining issue of the next several elections and would likely lead to a huge Democratic wave in the first election after the ruling, but with little chance of actually being able to undo it anytime soon. 

Pro-choicers would then probably continue to turn out the base and enact legislation to "chip away" at a personhood ruling by making it harder to prosecute personhood violations and allowing things such as "sanctuary cities", subsidized abortion/birth control tourism and the like.

The question is what could they even do with a big congressional majority in that world?  Even in a huge wave, it's hard to imagine 38 state legislatures going to the Dems. If there's a 6/3 SCOTUS majority to overturn Roe v. Wade, the same majority would likely return to a pre-New Deal reading of the Commerce Clause.  I guess a sort of nuclear option would be to make new states out of all cities larger than Wyoming (which would require only a simple majority vote and the president's signature) and then start passing a bunch of Constitutional amendments.

[หมูเด้ง]

I mean any messing with basic assumptions of American law or policy is bound to cause an upheaval. I'm amazed at how well Obama has done in implementing his policies so far. I'd never though we would get universal health care or anything close to it...or for that matter, gay marriage as quickly as we have. Could the opposite be true with reverting policies from a Roe world to a Lochner world?

[Skill and Chance]

I mean any messing with basic assumptions of American law or policy is bound to cause an upheaval. I'm amazed at how well Obama has done in implementing his policies so far. I'd never though we would get universal health care or anything close to it...or for that matter, gay marriage as quickly as we have. Could the opposite be true with reverting policies from a Roe world to a Lochner world?

Well, a reverse 2010 with Democrats picking up 50-80 house seats and 6-12 senate seats immediately following those decisions would almost be a given.  Beyond that, I am not sure.  If Democrats could build Depression-era majorities off the backlash, they could change whatever they wanted, but I suspect the country is too polarized for that.  But a literal return to Lochner might quickly lead to a constitutional convention.  Imagine that Obama and Reid had killed the filibuster in 2009 and then passed single payer, card check, and repealed all of the Bush tax cuts and added a carbon tax.  Would 2010 have been worse (e.g. 1894 was GOP +111 seats- 31% of the house flipped)?  Would 2012 have been another Republican sweep?