|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 30, 2020, 09:41:24 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: Virginiá)
  A Democratic southern strategy?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Poll
Question: Could this be a plausible battleground map in the future?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 51

Author Topic: A Democratic southern strategy?  (Read 3615 times)
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,397


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 06, 2016, 10:22:01 pm »

Logged
Lok
lok1999
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,277
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -1.06, S: -3.02

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 06, 2016, 10:43:25 pm »

Minnesota is trending Democrat though.

Otherwise, I could see this happening easily
Logged
Arch
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,125
United States


P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 06, 2016, 11:02:51 pm »
« Edited: September 06, 2016, 11:04:50 pm by Arch »

Minnesota is trending Democrat though.

Otherwise, I could see this happening easily

I would point out NH as an exception to this map as well. It's going à la Vermont, not à la Maine.

Also, AK will be a D state soon if the political and immigration trends keep holding up; so I would, at least, have it pink here.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,914
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 07, 2016, 12:07:42 am »

2017-2021: Hillary Clinton/Tim Kaine
2021-2029: John Kasich/Brian Sandoval

2028: Senator Stephen Benjamin*/Former Governor Gavin Newsom v. VP Brian Sandoval/Mayor Jared Kushner**


*Elected in 2020
**Elected in 2025
Logged
Figueira
84285
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,844


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 07, 2016, 07:14:35 am »

I think MS is going to be competitive, but I think the GA, NC, FL, MI, and WI will as well.

The logic with these maps is generally "The Democrats will start winning the South, and the Republicans will make up for it in the Midwest." It's just as likely that Republicans will try to stay afloat in the South. MS is small enough that they might let it slide through, but GA, NC, FL, and TX are going to remain tossups at best (for Democrats) and the Democrats will maintain their advantage in the upper Midwest. I can see WI and MI as tossups, but not full-on Republican.

Technically, the Democrats could trade the entire Midwest and PA with NC, GA, and AZ and still win presidential elections (assuming they win all the other Obama states), but again, huge Senate problem unless vote-splitting becomes a big thing again.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administrator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,120
Ukraine


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 07, 2016, 09:51:32 am »

MS is small enough that they might let it slide through, but GA, NC, FL, and TX are going to remain tossups at best (for Democrats) and the Democrats will maintain their advantage in the upper Midwest. I can see WI and MI as tossups, but not full-on Republican.

For how long, though? The changes in the electorate that is shifting these states around can't be held off forever. It's not like parties haven't tried to hold on to once-reliable states in the past. Eventually their welcome is worn out regardless of how much attention they pay to it.
Logged
Heisenberg
SecureAmerica
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,096
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 08, 2016, 11:31:10 pm »

My expected trends:

Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,914
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 09, 2016, 10:37:14 pm »

Logged
Buckhead Kelly
Patrick97
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,457
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 09, 2016, 11:06:30 pm »

Why does everyone think that MN,WI,MI,ME,PA, and NH are just going to vote Republican just because they are overwhelming white? Vice versa for Democrats win GA,AZ,MS,SC and TX. Do people really believe are politics are heading to 3rd world tribalism?!
Logged
Lok
lok1999
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,277
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -1.06, S: -3.02

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 09, 2016, 11:15:07 pm »

Why does everyone think that MN,WI,MI,ME,PA, and NH are just going to vote Republican just because they are overwhelming white? Vice versa for Democrats win GA,AZ,MS,SC and TX. Do people really believe are politics are heading to 3rd world tribalism?!

No, we are basing our opinion off trends mostly.
Logged
Grand Mufti of Northern Virginia
Frodo
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,139
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 10, 2016, 01:45:34 am »

I read somewhere (I can't relocate that article, unfortunately) that if the Republican Party loses Texas as well as Florida (at least at the presidential level), then they cease being a national party.

How true is this?
Logged
Biden/Abrams Voter
Adam Griffin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,592
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 10, 2016, 02:46:32 am »

I thought it'd be interesting to explore how the youngest and oldest cohorts are currently voting and measure the discrepancy between those two groups' margins as a way of peeking into the future.

I decided to look at 2014 for multiple reasons, including the fact that it is the most recent election and that these individuals (especially going forward for the young cohorts) are/will be the core, reliable voting blocs for each subset of the population. I could have used 2008 data, but sheesh: it's 8 years old now.

Obviously we don't have exit polling data for every state, but you can use it to observe general trends for several regions of the country, and definitely so for the South. All but two states' (ME & WV) youngest voters are more Democratic than their oldest voters; in WV, the margin difference was 2 points.

Shades indicate the difference between 18-29 & 65+ voters' margins in 2014. In states where exit polling was available for both gubernatorial and senatorial races, both outcomes were averaged together to produce the result.



The five states with the biggest discrepancies between 18-29 & 65+ groups:

State'14 Mar-Diff (Pts)18-2965+
CO81D+61R+20
SC58D+19R+39
MS43D+3R+40
GA43D+13R+30
TX42R+3R+45



As far as trend (in the Atlas sense of the word) is concerned, I looked at the national House vote exit polling, which showed a margin discrepancy between the two groups of 27 points (18-29: D+11 & over 65: R+16), and then made this map to show which states had discrepancies that were larger or smaller than the national House vote discrepancy. I know, it's a bit of apples and oranges, but that's all the store had. There is no Gov/Sen national exit poll.

Shades indicate trend in 2014 margin discrepancy shown above relative to national House margin discrepancy for the two groups. White equals no trend. Both maps show same thing (one with gradient, one w/o):





There are a couple of outliers on the map based on this measurement - which is to be expected given the nature of this - but I think it's interesting nonetheless. I'm wondering if all of that Latino infusion into western KS is starting to produce small but noticeable dividends in the youngest voting blocs. 
Logged
Biden/Abrams Voter
Adam Griffin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,592
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 10, 2016, 03:04:28 am »

I read somewhere (I can't relocate that article, unfortunately) that if the Republican Party loses Texas as well as Florida (at least at the presidential level), then they cease being a national party.

How true is this?

If it were to happen in, say, the next 10 years, then that would be largely true, as it would mean that states like GA, NC & AZ have definitely tipped as well. That'd leave the GOP with around 125 solid electoral votes.

If this happened over a slightly longer period and states such as ME/MN/MI/WI/IA/OH softened up in their favor, then it'd put them in the same boat that they found themselves in in 2012 (around 190 reliable EVs).

Of course, "national party" can be relative to some degree. With the House gerrymander and the unfair advantage they enjoy due to the structure of the Senate, they would likely still have an built-in advantage in Congress absent some sort of reapportionment reset.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,098
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 11, 2016, 05:07:25 am »

I read somewhere (I can't relocate that article, unfortunately) that if the Republican Party loses Texas as well as Florida (at least at the presidential level), then they cease being a national party.

How true is this?

Its false.

Because the simple fact of the matter is a that the Republican Party exists to win elections. Movement Conservatism exists to advance "the agendatm". If enough states won't soften up to that agenda to produce 270, then the Party will adapt via "the minimalist amount necessary" that will produce an electoral college majority. This is the process that has yielded the present alignment, from the previous North South one. Hostile demographic change led many Republicans to view flipping ancestrally Democratic Southern Whites as an easier path to preserving more of their core ideology than constantly having to appease ever more demanding and hostile unions.

It just so happens that the states in question produce the path of least resistance, not because they don't require the GOP to appeal to minorities (even they do), but because it requires a lower threshold that at present will remain constant in most of those states, unlike diversifying sunbelt states where the threshold will be ever higher, year after year.

These states don't currently vote Republican, yes, but that is with current Republican Party dogma and positions, not those of the future. And remaining unchanged is not an option. A calculus will have to be made as to which path requires the party to change the most (Northern or Sunbelt), and the party will by default remain as true to its core purpose as practical and still serve said purpose by winning.

Logged
AGA
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,704
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.03, S: -6.26

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 11, 2016, 11:52:05 am »

These are the only state trends I am highly confident in right now:



It's still unclear whether the North-South divide will flip, whether we might end up with a GOP East vs. Dem West divide, or whether it just becomes all urban vs. rural irrespective of region.

I am not sure why New Jersey would trend Republican.
Logged
Lean Branson
Doctor Imperialism
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,035


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 17, 2017, 10:19:18 pm »

I thought it'd be interesting to explore how the youngest and oldest cohorts are currently voting and measure the discrepancy between those two groups' margins as a way of peeking into the future.

I decided to look at 2014 for multiple reasons, including the fact that it is the most recent election and that these individuals (especially going forward for the young cohorts) are/will be the core, reliable voting blocs for each subset of the population. I could have used 2008 data, but sheesh: it's 8 years old now.

Obviously we don't have exit polling data for every state, but you can use it to observe general trends for several regions of the country, and definitely so for the South. All but two states' (ME & WV) youngest voters are more Democratic than their oldest voters; in WV, the margin difference was 2 points.

Shades indicate the difference between 18-29 & 65+ voters' margins in 2014. In states where exit polling was available for both gubernatorial and senatorial races, both outcomes were averaged together to produce the result.



The five states with the biggest discrepancies between 18-29 & 65+ groups:

State'14 Mar-Diff (Pts)18-2965+
CO81D+61R+20
SC58D+19R+39
MS43D+3R+40
GA43D+13R+30
TX42R+3R+45



As far as trend (in the Atlas sense of the word) is concerned, I looked at the national House vote exit polling, which showed a margin discrepancy between the two groups of 27 points (18-29: D+11 & over 65: R+16), and then made this map to show which states had discrepancies that were larger or smaller than the national House vote discrepancy. I know, it's a bit of apples and oranges, but that's all the store had. There is no Gov/Sen national exit poll.

Shades indicate trend in 2014 margin discrepancy shown above relative to national House margin discrepancy for the two groups. White equals no trend. Both maps show same thing (one with gradient, one w/o):





There are a couple of outliers on the map based on this measurement - which is to be expected given the nature of this - but I think it's interesting nonetheless. I'm wondering if all of that Latino infusion into western KS is starting to produce small but noticeable dividends in the youngest voting blocs. 

Bumping an interesting post. I wonder how plugging 2016 data into this would look.
Logged
Pragmatic Conservative
1184AZ
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,771


Political Matrix
E: 3.00, S: -0.41

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 18, 2017, 01:42:10 am »

For age gap this is how the above states change (third party vote probably muddles the data a bit); I am using Presidential vote numbers.

Colorado
14 difference: 81
18-29 16: D+14
65+: D+1
16 Difference: 13


South Carolina
14 Difference:58
18-29: Tied
65+:R+19
16 Difference:19

Georgia
14 Difference: 43
18-29: D+30
65+:R+36
16 Difference:66

Texas
14 Difference:42
18-29: D+19
65+: R+29
16 Difference: 48

Other states (I only did swing states)
Arizona
18-29: D+18
65+: R+13
16 Difference 31

Florida
18-29: D+18
65+: R+17
16 Difference: 35

Iowa
18-29: R+6
65+:R+4
16 Difference: 2

Maine
18-29: D+5
65+: D+17
16 Difference:12

Michigan
18-24:D+23
65+: R+4
16 Difference: 27

Minnesota
18-24: D+3
65+: D+2
16 Difference:1

Nevada
18-29: D+17
65+: D+5
16 Difference: 12

New Hampshire
18-29: D+8
65+: Tied
16 Difference:8

North Carolina
18-29: D+22
65+: R+23
16 Difference:45

Ohio
18-29: D+9
65+: R+13
16 Difference:22

Pennsylvania
18-29: D+9
65+:R+10
16 Difference: 19

Virginia
18-29:D+18
65+:R+7
16 Difference:25

Wisconsin
18-29: D+3
65+: R+1
16 Difference: 4


Logged
PoliticalShelter
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 398
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 18, 2017, 01:59:41 pm »

^

I'm surprised that Michigan young voters are such strongly in favour of the democrats p, especially compared to some of its neighbours.

Anyway these numbers tell us what a lot of us already believe will happen: the sunbelt will move towards the Democrats while certain white, rural states in the north will move towards the GOP.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administrator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,120
Ukraine


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: November 18, 2017, 02:23:36 pm »

^

I'm surprised that Michigan young voters are such strongly in favour of the democrats p, especially compared to some of its neighbours.

Anyway these numbers tell us what a lot of us already believe will happen: the sunbelt will move towards the Democrats while certain white, rural states in the north will move towards the GOP.

The issue I have is that many of these states' 18-29 year old groups voted enormously for Obama just 4 years prior. Now, granted, most of the swing among 18-29 year olds in these states happened with 18-24, many of whom couldn't even vote in 2012, but all of this makes me wonder exactly how much of this is permanent. Clinton was such a bad candidate for these states, and she was even worse one for Millennials. This was bound to be an issue somewhere. Also, even in states where 18-24 year olds flipped, it was often not by all that much. For instance in Minnesota and Wisconsin, Trump only won 18-24 year olds by low-mid single digits. He flat out lost them in Pennsylvania and bigly in Michigan. Looking back to the 2000 election, it would not have been as easy to predict how things would play out from their young voters. For instance, 18-29 year olds in Minnesota voted for Bush by a slim plurality only to go hugely Democratic not that much later.

It's difficult to deny these states will probably get more Republican in the future, but I just wonder how much. These numbers are nothing like the youth in the South and some western states. But, I suppose we'll see how far this is going once the 2020 results roll in. 2018 exit polls should also help.
Logged
Pennsylvania Deplorable
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 463


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: November 19, 2017, 03:17:45 pm »

Minnesota is trending Democrat though.

Otherwise, I could see this happening easily
No it isn't. It went from the most reliable democratic state post WWII to barely over 1% margin of victory in 2016. It's trending hard R. Mississippi isn't really attracting immigrants, so I don't see it flipping soon. The rest is possible though. Especially Georgia, which had one of the biggest age gaps of any state and has been flooded with Hispanics moving into the Atlanta area since the 1990s and Texas, which is poised to become plurality Hispanic (although that includes many Old Spanish Hispanos who are usually racially white, have been in America for centuries, and don't really seem to identify with the new arrivals from Mexico and Central America.)
Logged
Skill and Chance
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,128
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: November 19, 2017, 03:54:52 pm »

2018 and 2020 will see a continuation of the 2016 trends. Trump just accelerated a lot of already existing trends anyways.

The Democrats’ base lays in the Southwest + GA/FL/NC. Emerging groups of young people and minorities will be the bedrock of their coalition. How the GOP regroups is anyone’s guess. They’re a ticking time bomb and their last trifecta of 2003-2007 was almost as weak as their current one. They’ll have to dump their evangelical-southern strategy offensive once Texas and Florida go by the wayside and Millennials become politically powerful.

The strategy of catering to Boomer retirees seems to be working reasonably well for the GOP in Florida, but I agree that the clock is ticking fast for them in most of the other Southern/Southwestern states.  If New England gradually gives out to a more secular GOP, though, Republicans will counter with a big advantage in the Senate.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,128
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: November 19, 2017, 04:30:02 pm »

This would be my map of state trends I am pretty confident in right now:



Save for a few exceptions, this map still seems pretty accurate. Adding to this, I would color SD, PA, MN and AR blue and CO, LA, AL, SC, MD, UT, MA, KS and OK red.

Possible 2032 map with the incumbent D winning reelection?



I doubt Dems will get all the way to 70% in CA (I expect some erosion in NorCal as more and more Dems outside of CA are starting to run against Silicon Valley, which will counter continuing Dem movement in SoCal and keep things in the low 60's statewide) or that they will stay that strong in New England at the same time they are winning the entire Deep South, but the general theme of this is plausible. 

You think the entire Deep South would give out in a presidential race before KS?  I think KS would go first unless the Dem president is running an explicitly religious left campaign.  OK might even flip before AL does.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,128
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: November 19, 2017, 05:52:10 pm »

2018 and 2020 will see a continuation of the 2016 trends. Trump just accelerated a lot of already existing trends anyways.

The Democrats’ base lays in the Southwest + GA/FL/NC. Emerging groups of young people and minorities will be the bedrock of their coalition. How the GOP regroups is anyone’s guess. They’re a ticking time bomb and their last trifecta of 2003-2007 was almost as weak as their current one. They’ll have to dump their evangelical-southern strategy offensive once Texas and Florida go by the wayside and Millennials become politically powerful.

The strategy of catering to Boomer retirees seems to be working reasonably well for the GOP in Florida, but I agree that the clock is ticking fast for them in most of the other Southern/Southwestern states.  If New England gradually gives out to a more secular GOP, though, Republicans will counter with a big advantage in the Senate.

It’ll be interesting to see if the migration of elderly retirees into Florida continues apace these next 7+ years given how hurricanes and climate change is hitting the state. I’m not sure this strategy lasts long given that climate change will only continue to become more devastating to the state.

Or Florida gradually forces Republicans to the negotiating table on climate change?
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines