Would Hillary winning Arizona and Georgia end the Southern Strategy forever?

[Ronnie]

Today, I encountered an article that reflects my recent thoughts on how Trump's potential landslide loss could possibly have a positive impact on the party by ending any remaining Republican illusions about being able to win national elections by driving up the white vote while writing off minorities.  The GOP has relied on winning Georgia and Arizona by exploiting this strategy, and Hillary winning them could send a decisive message to prospective 2020 (and beyond) Republican candidates that they cannot alienate minorities if they want to have a chance at winning the presidency.

I am probably being too idealistic, but I do think a massive Trump loss might usher in a much-needed realignment.  What do you all think?

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

It could. Or Fox News and Breitbart and talk radio and all the other usual suspects will just cry "RIGGED!" for months on end and the Republican base will become even more Trumpian than it already is, making it even harder for those who run the party (and I use the term "run" extremely loosely) to actually fix things.

[Ronnie]

Would they be able to say the election was rigged if Trump loses by double digits nationally, though?  Surely, there has to be a point where they acknowledge their guy lost the election fair and square.

[TarHeelDem]

The GOP has relied on winning Georgia and Arizona by exploiting [the Southern] Strategy, and Hillary winning them could send a decisive message to prospective 2020 (and beyond) Republican candidates that they cannot alienate minorities if they want to have a chance at winning the presidency.

Honestly if they didn't get the message from the demographic numbers in 2012 I doubt they'll get it now either. If that clear-as-day autopsy wasn't enough, then what will be?

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

Would they be able to say the election was rigged if Trump loses by double digits nationally, though?  Surely, there has to be a point where they acknowledge their guy lost the election fair and square.

Maybe. I honestly don't know at this point. The profit motive of selling the myth of the election being rigged to Republican base voters who would find such a story comforting is going to be very powerful in the right-wing media, especially given that Trump himself is spreading such theories. Perhaps if he loses by 15 points and Hillary picks up Texas and Mississippi and Utah they may not be able to make such claims, but if we are talking about the roughly 7% margin that looks plausible now, I would absolutely assume that many will go with rigging claims.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Would they be able to say the election was rigged if Trump loses by double digits nationally, though?  Surely, there has to be a point where they acknowledge their guy lost the election fair and square.

They still haven't acknowledged that they lost twice to a Kenyan Muslim black guy. They will be just as sluggish to acknowledge that they lost to a girl.

[IceSpear]

Would they be able to say the election was rigged if Trump loses by double digits nationally, though?  Surely, there has to be a point where they acknowledge their guy lost the election fair and square.

Yes, they would. Many Republicans said ACORN stole the election for Obama in 2008 and also in 2012 (when it didn't exist.)

[Cassius]

So basically, his strategy to end the politics of race is to campaign appealing to a race-based coalition made up of ethnic minority groups to lock 'angry white people' out of power for good? Good luck...

[Virginiá]

The GOP can't really just change on a dime. Outside influence, whether in the form of independent political groups, talk radio or other media, really hurts their ability to right the ship and has played a big part in their current problems right now. Just because they lose a handful of normally-safe red states doesn't mean the GOP can suddenly do what they have so far been unable to do - snuff out influence of those meddling outside groups.

Maybe they could start by cracking down on Super PACs and other "political advocacy" groups. Start shifting more power / influence back to the party and not independent groups with their own agendas. Ease back or flat out end gerrymandering and bring back more earmarks in Congress.

A fair amount (obviously not all) of current partisan problems come from Republicans attempting to lock in their power by any means necessary.

[Orser67]

I think GOP elites have already gotten that message, the issue is more that a)the RNC can't just pick an ideal candidate to cater to the right demographics and b)it's tough to balance appealing to minorities with appealing to the GOP base.

[Kingpoleon]

I think this is probably the most likely map of a 12-12.5%ish win nationwide:

414 - 124

And yeah, I think that would probably at least cause a severe change in their strategies.

[hopper]

Arizona is the South? I don't think AZ has ever been labled as a Southern State like say TN or AL.

[hopper]

Would they be able to say the election was rigged if Trump loses by double digits nationally, though?  Surely, there has to be a point where they acknowledge their guy lost the election fair and square.

Trump is not the candidate that the GOP Political Class wanted as their nominee in the first place.

[hopper]

The GOP can't really just change on a dime. Outside influence, whether in the form of independent political groups, talk radio or other media, really hurts their ability to right the ship and has played a big part in their current problems right now. Just because they lose a handful of normally-safe red states doesn't mean the GOP can suddenly do what they have so far been unable to do - snuff out influence of those meddling outside groups.

Maybe they could start by cracking down on Super PACs and other "political advocacy" groups. Start shifting more power / influence back to the party and not independent groups with their own agendas. Ease back or flat out end gerrymandering and bring back more earmarks in Congress.

A fair amount (obviously not all) of current partisan problems come from Republicans attempting to lock in their power by any means necessary.

Talk Radio is the big deal. Most of the callers that call in are older anyway and those older voters/callers can't win the party a Presidential Election.

End Gerrymandering-I'm for that and I don't care wether a Democrat or Republican does it its just wrong.

Super PACS-Did you see how much money Super PACS spent on the Jeb Bush Presidential Campaign? Jeb was out of the Presidential Race pretty early after the SC Primary. Super PACS didn't do much to benefit him at all.

[Virginiá]

Super PACS-Did you see how much money Super PACS spent on the Jeb Bush Presidential Campaign? Jeb was out of the Presidential Race pretty early after the SC Primary. Super PACS didn't do much to benefit him at all.

Just because it didn't work for Jeb doesn't mean money means nothing. I mean I really shouldn't have to even say that. So many people are jumping on this example as if it proves definitively that money doesn't win elections, when we know that money is increasingly valuable the further you go downballot, where many candidates are largely unknown. If Super PACs prove less capable of swinging presidential elections where the candidates are well-defined, does that make them OK? Because that's just 1 office, with many more, arguably more important, further down the ticket.

AFP and associates themselves are close to rivaling the GOP at this point, and many other groups continue to meddle in politics themselves. They have separate agendas and they complicate the party's ability to manage and expand its coalition over time.

So I stand by my assertions. Republicans have fought tooth and nail to implement policies or strategies that have indirectly fueled the exact wrong kind of behavior needed to expand their coalition, and it's leading to a situation where voters more tolerant and inviting of race-based methods make up their primary electorate. At this rate, they'll be more and more vulnerable to bigots with bigoted strategies and that will hurt the party's outreach efforts.

I'm not saying those things (pacs/gerrymandering/etc) are the only problems, certainly not, but they need to be addressed.

[hopper]

Super PACS-Did you see how much money Super PACS spent on the Jeb Bush Presidential Campaign? Jeb was out of the Presidential Race pretty early after the SC Primary. Super PACS didn't do much to benefit him at all.

Just because it didn't work for Jeb doesn't mean money means nothing. I mean I really shouldn't have to even say that. So many people are jumping on this example as if it proves definitively that money doesn't win elections, when we know that money is increasingly valuable the further you go downballot, where many candidates are largely unknown. If Super PACs prove less capable of swinging presidential elections where the candidates are well-defined, does that make them OK? Because that's just 1 office, with many more, arguably more important, further down the ticket.

AFP and associates themselves are close to rivaling the GOP at this point, and many other groups continue to meddle in politics themselves. They have separate agendas and they complicate the party's ability to manage and expand its coalition over time.

So I stand by my assertions. Republicans have fought tooth and nail to implement policies or strategies that have indirectly fueled the exact wrong kind of behavior needed to expand their coalition, and it's leading to a situation where voters more tolerant and inviting of race-based methods make up their primary electorate. At this rate, they'll be more and more vulnerable to bigots with bigoted strategies and that will hurt the party's outreach efforts.

I'm not saying those things (pacs/gerrymandering/etc) are the only problems, certainly not, but they need to be addressed.

You are talking about Trump? I wouldn't vote for him because of that reason because of his bigoted statements. Let me know when the Dems win the majority in the US House since you are all doom and gloom about the Republicans.

[Virginiá]

You are talking about Trump? I wouldn't vote for him because of that reason because of his bigoted statements. Let me know when the Dems win the majority in the US House since you are all doom and gloom about the Republicans.

I didn't say everyone in the GOP would be receptive to that. My words were clear.

And yes, I am doom and gloom because your party is coming unhinged and your primaries only seem to be getting more toxic for presidential candidates. It's not a secret nor a solitary opinion.

[hopper]

You are talking about Trump? I wouldn't vote for him because of that reason because of his bigoted statements. Let me know when the Dems win the majority in the US House since you are all doom and gloom about the Republicans.

I didn't say everyone in the GOP would be receptive to that. My words were clear.

And yes, I am doom and gloom because your party is coming unhinged and your primaries only seem to be getting more toxic for presidential candidates. It's not a secret nor a solitary opinion.

Yeah they acted like a bunch of frat boys up on the debate stage during the debates this year. It was a little hard to watch at times to see grown men act like that.

[IceSpear]

Yes, Virginia is correct. Money is an extremely important factor, but in very high publicity races, it has less value. Also, Jeb easily reached the point of diminishing returns.

[Anna Komnene]

It all depends on the candidates.  Reagan and Bush dominated the democrats throughout the 80s, and then Clinton was able to turn the tide with his "third way" (and a little help from Perot).

The Republicans have candidates that are capable of making different kinds of appeals that could broaden their support to more people, but their problem is that many of their voters just don't like those kinds of candidates.  It's not a coincidence that they ended up choosing between Trump and Cruz.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Arizona is the South? I don't think AZ has ever been labled as a Southern State like say TN or AL.

Arizona isn't "The South" as such.  What it is, is the Sunbelt.  This is the band affluent suburbs stretching from North Carolina all the way to Orange County, California.  Part of what made the Southern Strategy work is that the GOP could count on suburbanites as part of a coalition to hold these states (except for Mississippi and Alabama, where they rely on winning "Old South" whites by absurd margins).

As these suburbs become more diverse and more socially liberal, the GOP is going to have a harder time keeping them in their column.  California was the first to slip away, followed by North Carolina in the 2000s.  Next comes Arizona and Georgia, followed by the granddaddy: Texas.  (MS and SC will also become swing states, but for different reasons.)

A "revised Southern Strategy" would involve ways to continue appealing to the Sunbelt.  Neither TEA Party extremism nor Trumpism is the recipe for that.

[Young Conservative]

The bias in favor of democrats on threads like this is almost laughable. And obviously not because one election doesn't dictate the permanent status of a state. EX: 2004 New Mexico. This doomsday propaganda from the left about the GOP being over occurs every cycle and its obviously not true since the GOP holds the house and senate. This election would've easily been won by almost any other republican. We all know that. Democrats got lucky with Trump, but if clinton wins , which she probably will, Republicans will win massively in 2018 and will win in 2020. History repeats itself.Think back to how the democrats floundered from 1980 to 1992. Bill clinton renewed the party. 2020 will be a renewal as is the natural cycle. Although, democrats got so lucky with trump this cycle considering President obama is neither as popular nor as charismatic as reagan and his successor lacks charisma.

[Virginiá]

The bias in favor of democrats on threads like this is almost laughable. And obviously not because one election doesn't dictate the permanent status of a state. EX: 2004 New Mexico. This doomsday propaganda from the left about the GOP being over occurs every cycle and its obviously not true since the GOP holds the house and senate. This election would've easily been won by almost any other republican. We all know that. Democrats got lucky with Trump, but if clinton wins , which she probably will, Republicans will win massively in 2018 and will win in 2020. History repeats itself.Think back to how the democrats floundered from 1980 to 1992. Bill clinton renewed the party. 2020 will be a renewal as is the natural cycle. Although, democrats got so lucky with trump this cycle considering President obama is neither as popular nor as charismatic as reagan and his successor lacks charisma.

Democrats from 1993 and 2009 completely agree with you - it's no biggie, since downballot offices are in no short supply, everything must be fine!

Of course the GOP isn't done with, but you guys have real problems at the national level and the demographics, both in terms of race and age groups, are presenting a serious issues for you guys that will find its way downballot eventually. This isn't a secret and it has been widely discussed from Atlas to respected politicos. That is a primary reason for such doom and gloom talk, at least from my perspective.

If you think all is fine, then great, but don't come in here acting all snobby like everyone is out of touch and biased. You didn't even back up your argument. All you did was make a bunch of absolutist predictions in a condescending manner.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

This doomsday propaganda from the left about the GOP being over occurs every cycle and its obviously not true since the GOP holds the house and senate.

The GOP holds the House thanks to gerrymandering.  The GOP holds the Senate thanks to a large number of rural states with small populations, compared to a smaller number of states with large urban populations.

[LLR]

Of course not, Alabama and Tennessee ain't flippin' any time soon.