The Reason Dems are certainly NOT dead going forward....

[SCNCmod]

Granted- I think Dems do need to do a better job attracting rural voters (which naturally align with Dems on things like Education Policies, Tax Policy, etc)... That Said...

There will always be an ebb & flow b/n Dems & Repub's when it comes to the House & Senate (esp in the House, since districts are re-gerrymandered every 10 years)...

But 1 reason the Dems are certainly not dead going forward regarding the Presidency

* White % of the electorate generally decreases about 2% every 4 years (since the Reagan/Bush years).

* Which is why Dems have only lost the popular vote 1 time in the past 25 years... and trend that is likely to continue for some time

* Because of the electoral college- D's & R's are sort of in limbo... but as the larger southern states (FL/TX/GA/NC/AZ) move more towards minority-majority states... the Electoral College will start to align more permanently with the popular vote.  

* This will also naturally affect Senate Races & House Races as well.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

No party's dead, and the GOP winning the popular vote for the presidency (why do people ignore the House?) only once since 1988 says absolutely nothing whatsoever about its prospects of winning the popular vote going forward (unless one can reliably predict when recessions are going to occur).

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Granted- I think Dems do need to do a better job attracting rural voters (which naturally align with Dems on things like Education Policies, Tax Policy, etc)... That Said...

There will always be an ebb & flow b/n Dems & Repub's when it comes to the House & Senate (esp in the House, since districts are re-gerrymandered every 10 years)...

But 1 reason the Dems are certainly not dead going forward regarding the Presidency

* White % of the electorate generally decreases about 2% every 4 years (since the Reagan/Bush years).

* Which is why Dems have only lost the popular vote 1 time in the past 25 years... and trend that is likely to continue for some time

* Because of the electoral college- D's & R's are sort of in limbo... but as the larger southern states (FL/TX/GA/NC/AZ) move more towards minority-majority states... the Electoral College will start to align more permanently with the popular vote. 

* This will also naturally affect Senate Races & House Races as well.

Yes, this is obviously the case, but yet the vast majority of people on this forum are in complete denial of this fact.

-How many times did the GOP win the House popular vote?

[JA]

The short-term problem for Democrats is if they fail to sufficiently mobilize minorities, millennials, and urban/suburban voters to actually vote during Presidential, midterm, and local elections. It's quite obvious that, unless the Democrats compromise the growing part of the base, they won't make significant inroads into rural communities anymore. The Democratic Party is more consistently the party of globalization, cosmopolitanism, and multiculturalism than it is anything else. This simply doesn't and won't appeal to rural, white voters who feel left behind by globalization (and, honestly, they have been).

Democrats should focus on turning out their base in every state, but especially establishing solid infrastructure in the current and upcoming minority-majority states and those that have benefited from globalization (Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York (NYC), North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, and Washington). At our current rate of automation and productivity, along with the decreasing demand for resources and goods from small and rural communities, there are simply too many people living in these economically stagnant or declining areas. Anyone pretending they can rescue them without harming the global economy and big cities is lying to them and giving them false hope in exchange for votes.

Why would a company like Amazon, Microsoft, IB, Ford, or any other company open a branch or facility in some rural town in Kentucky? It's simply not worth it. Employers go where the skilled, educated employees are concentrated, which attracts more skilled, educated workers. Cities are where this occurs. Some small towns may get lucky by being transformed into a tourist area because they have something unique to offer, but that's a rare minority. I know I'm going to take some serious heat for this post, but I'm not saying any of this is morally right. Only that this is what's happening and to reverse it would require sacrificing many of the benefits of globalization - benefits which help people worldwide, including in America, have access to work and more affordable products.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Granted- I think Dems do need to do a better job attracting rural voters (which naturally align with Dems on things like Education Policies, Tax Policy, etc)... That Said...

There will always be an ebb & flow b/n Dems & Repub's when it comes to the House & Senate (esp in the House, since districts are re-gerrymandered every 10 years)...

But 1 reason the Dems are certainly not dead going forward regarding the Presidency

* White % of the electorate generally decreases about 2% every 4 years (since the Reagan/Bush years).

* Which is why Dems have only lost the popular vote 1 time in the past 25 years... and trend that is likely to continue for some time

* Because of the electoral college- D's & R's are sort of in limbo... but as the larger southern states (FL/TX/GA/NC/AZ) move more towards minority-majority states... the Electoral College will start to align more permanently with the popular vote. 

* This will also naturally affect Senate Races & House Races as well.

Yes, this is obviously the case, but yet the vast majority of people on this forum are in complete denial of this fact.

-How many times did the GOP win the House popular vote?

There are a lot of factors involved in this.  Some candidates run unopposed.  Some run in districts that are so skewed to one party that they barely even need to campaign during the general election.

-This is flagrant denialism.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

The short-term problem for Democrats is if they fail to sufficiently mobilize minorities, millennials, and urban/suburban voters to actually vote during Presidential, midterm, and local elections. It's quite obvious that, unless the Democrats compromise the growing part of the base, they won't make significant inroads into rural communities anymore. The Democratic Party is more consistently the party of globalization, cosmopolitanism, and multiculturalism than it is anything else. This simply doesn't and won't appeal to rural, white voters who feel left behind by globalization (and, honestly, they have been).

Democrats should focus on turning out their base in every state, but especially establishing solid infrastructure in the current and upcoming minority-majority states and those that have benefited from globalization (Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York (NYC), North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, and Washington). At our current rate of automation and productivity, along with the decreasing demand for resources and goods from small and rural communities, there are simply too many people living in these economically stagnant or declining areas. Anyone pretending they can rescue them without harming the global economy and big cities is lying to them and giving them false hope in exchange for votes.

Why would a company like Amazon, Microsoft, IB, Ford, or any other company open a branch or facility in some rural town in Kentucky? It's simply not worth it. Employers go where the skilled, educated employees are concentrated, which attracts more skilled, educated workers. Cities are where this occurs. Some small towns may get lucky by being transformed into a tourist area because they have something unique to offer, but that's a rare minority. I know I'm going to take some serious heat for this post, but I'm not saying any of this is morally right. Only that this is what's happening and to reverse it would require sacrificing many of the benefits of globalization - benefits which help people worldwide, including in America, have access to work and more affordable products.

-You forgot the importance of removing restrictions on residential skyscraper construction in the big cities.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Granted- I think Dems do need to do a better job attracting rural voters (which naturally align with Dems on things like Education Policies, Tax Policy, etc)... That Said...

There will always be an ebb & flow b/n Dems & Repub's when it comes to the House & Senate (esp in the House, since districts are re-gerrymandered every 10 years)...

But 1 reason the Dems are certainly not dead going forward regarding the Presidency

* White % of the electorate generally decreases about 2% every 4 years (since the Reagan/Bush years).

* Which is why Dems have only lost the popular vote 1 time in the past 25 years... and trend that is likely to continue for some time

* Because of the electoral college- D's & R's are sort of in limbo... but as the larger southern states (FL/TX/GA/NC/AZ) move more towards minority-majority states... the Electoral College will start to align more permanently with the popular vote. 

* This will also naturally affect Senate Races & House Races as well.

Yes, this is obviously the case, but yet the vast majority of people on this forum are in complete denial of this fact.

-How many times did the GOP win the House popular vote?

There are a lot of factors involved in this.  Some candidates run unopposed.  Some run in districts that are so skewed to one party that they barely even need to campaign during the general election.

-This is flagrant denialism.

OK lets try this another way.  Did democrats win a vast majority of the senate vote in 2016?  Or do we not count California where two democrats ran against each other?

-Most Senate candidates overperformed Trump.

[JA]

The short-term problem for Democrats is if they fail to sufficiently mobilize minorities, millennials, and urban/suburban voters to actually vote during Presidential, midterm, and local elections. It's quite obvious that, unless the Democrats compromise the growing part of the base, they won't make significant inroads into rural communities anymore. The Democratic Party is more consistently the party of globalization, cosmopolitanism, and multiculturalism than it is anything else. This simply doesn't and won't appeal to rural, white voters who feel left behind by globalization (and, honestly, they have been).

Democrats should focus on turning out their base in every state, but especially establishing solid infrastructure in the current and upcoming minority-majority states and those that have benefited from globalization (Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York (NYC), North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, and Washington). At our current rate of automation and productivity, along with the decreasing demand for resources and goods from small and rural communities, there are simply too many people living in these economically stagnant or declining areas. Anyone pretending they can rescue them without harming the global economy and big cities is lying to them and giving them false hope in exchange for votes.

Why would a company like Amazon, Microsoft, IB, Ford, or any other company open a branch or facility in some rural town in Kentucky? It's simply not worth it. Employers go where the skilled, educated employees are concentrated, which attracts more skilled, educated workers. Cities are where this occurs. Some small towns may get lucky by being transformed into a tourist area because they have something unique to offer, but that's a rare minority. I know I'm going to take some serious heat for this post, but I'm not saying any of this is morally right. Only that this is what's happening and to reverse it would require sacrificing many of the benefits of globalization - benefits which help people worldwide, including in America, have access to work and more affordable products.

-You forgot the importance of removing restrictions on residential skyscraper construction in the big cities.

I was addressing only rural concerns in that post. There are many urban and suburban issues that need to be addressed, especially infrastructure, public transportation, and affordable housing (which definitely includes removing restrictions on skyscraper construction and limits on new building permits, among other things).

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

No party's dead, and the GOP winning the popular vote for the presidency (why do people ignore the House?) only once since 1988 says absolutely nothing whatsoever about its prospects of winning the popular vote going forward (unless one can reliably predict when recessions are going to occur).

Yeah, while the long-term prospects for the GOP are particularly morbid in the places that matter most, I certainly wouldn't call it "dead." Trumpism and white nationalism as a potent force will probably be "dead" once the GOP realizes that those ideologies aren't ideologies that will be politically sustainable (unless they want to be relegated to Appalachia, the Rust Belt and the Plains).
But I also refuse to believe that the GOP won't win in the future. They certainly will. That unknown person will probably be pretty different from the average Republican now, though.

-David Duke won? Last time I checked, the Junior Senator from Louisiana was John Kennedy, a pretty bog-standard conservative. If you're pretending White nationalism is the core of the GOP, then you should expect the South to stay in the Republican column, as well. In any case, though Trump did drive a stake into the GOP's advantage in the fast-growing counties, Bob Dole didn't win even when the GOP had that advantage with yuge clarity.

In former times (2012) American politics was based around the famous marriage gap. Trump added a non-college vote touch to it (which has certainly helped the GOP in the short term, and will probably help it become a sensible party in the long term).

Trumpism is a better ideology for the Republican Party than Hillaryism 2016 is for the Democrats.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

The short-term problem for Democrats is if they fail to sufficiently mobilize minorities, millennials, and urban/suburban voters to actually vote during Presidential, midterm, and local elections. It's quite obvious that, unless the Democrats compromise the growing part of the base, they won't make significant inroads into rural communities anymore. The Democratic Party is more consistently the party of globalization, cosmopolitanism, and multiculturalism than it is anything else. This simply doesn't and won't appeal to rural, white voters who feel left behind by globalization (and, honestly, they have been).

Democrats should focus on turning out their base in every state, but especially establishing solid infrastructure in the current and upcoming minority-majority states and those that have benefited from globalization (Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York (NYC), North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, and Washington). At our current rate of automation and productivity, along with the decreasing demand for resources and goods from small and rural communities, there are simply too many people living in these economically stagnant or declining areas. Anyone pretending they can rescue them without harming the global economy and big cities is lying to them and giving them false hope in exchange for votes.

Why would a company like Amazon, Microsoft, IB, Ford, or any other company open a branch or facility in some rural town in Kentucky? It's simply not worth it. Employers go where the skilled, educated employees are concentrated, which attracts more skilled, educated workers. Cities are where this occurs. Some small towns may get lucky by being transformed into a tourist area because they have something unique to offer, but that's a rare minority. I know I'm going to take some serious heat for this post, but I'm not saying any of this is morally right. Only that this is what's happening and to reverse it would require sacrificing many of the benefits of globalization - benefits which help people worldwide, including in America, have access to work and more affordable products.

-You forgot the importance of removing restrictions on residential skyscraper construction in the big cities.

I was addressing only rural concerns in that post. There are many urban and suburban issues that need to be addressed, especially infrastructure, public transportation, and affordable housing (which definitely includes removing restrictions on skyscraper construction and limits on new building permits, among other things).

-The big reason people don't bother moving is that the costs of doing so are prohibitive. The labor market is (or at least has the potential to be) a national one, not just a rural and urban one.

[JA]

No party's dead, and the GOP winning the popular vote for the presidency (why do people ignore the House?) only once since 1988 says absolutely nothing whatsoever about its prospects of winning the popular vote going forward (unless one can reliably predict when recessions are going to occur).

Yeah, while the long-term prospects for the GOP are particularly morbid in the places that matter most, I certainly wouldn't call it "dead." Trumpism and white nationalism as a potent force will probably be "dead" once the GOP realizes that those ideologies aren't ideologies that will be politically sustainable (unless they want to be relegated to Appalachia, the Rust Belt and the Plains).
But I also refuse to believe that the GOP won't win in the future. They certainly will. That unknown person will probably be pretty different from the average Republican now, though.

Any notion that either political party is dead is simply absurd. The GOP will adapt, as any competent party would. But current Republican enthusiasts better enjoy this last hurrah of a President whose base is in the rural, white communities of the country. Such a candidate would be DOA by some point in the 2020s, depending on how the Democrats conduct themselves. I imagine the GOP will look to currently globalized, largely minority states with Republican leadership as their inspiration.

[SCNCmod]

The short-term problem for Democrats is if they fail to sufficiently mobilize minorities, millennials, and urban/suburban voters to actually vote during Presidential, midterm, and local elections. It's quite obvious that, unless the Democrats compromise the growing part of the base, they won't make significant inroads into rural communities anymore. The Democratic Party is more consistently the party of globalization, cosmopolitanism, and multiculturalism than it is anything else. This simply doesn't and won't appeal to rural, white voters who feel left behind by globalization (and, honestly, they have been).

Democrats should focus on turning out their base in every state, but especially establishing solid infrastructure in the current and upcoming minority-majority states and those that have benefited from globalization (Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York (NYC), North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, and Washington). At our current rate of automation and productivity, along with the decreasing demand for resources and goods from small and rural communities, there are simply too many people living in these economically stagnant or declining areas. Anyone pretending they can rescue them without harming the global economy and big cities is lying to them and giving them false hope in exchange for votes.

Why would a company like Amazon, Microsoft, IB, Ford, or any other company open a branch or facility in some rural town in Kentucky? It's simply not worth it. Employers go where the skilled, educated employees are concentrated, which attracts more skilled, educated workers. Cities are where this occurs. Some small towns may get lucky by being transformed into a tourist area because they have something unique to offer, but that's a rare minority. I know I'm going to take some serious heat for this post, but I'm not saying any of this is morally right. Only that this is what's happening and to reverse it would require sacrificing many of the benefits of globalization - benefits which help people worldwide, including in America, have access to work and more affordable products.

This is spot on.

I agree also-

Although I think eventually (and it may take some time)... there will be a resurgence of sorts in many small towns (whether its from retirees, growth in internet based small businesses, a return of some advanced manufacturing, or other factors that are not yet obvious).  But many of these small towns will likely have a difference political make-up (to some extent) than they do currently.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

No party's dead, and the GOP winning the popular vote for the presidency (why do people ignore the House?) only once since 1988 says absolutely nothing whatsoever about its prospects of winning the popular vote going forward (unless one can reliably predict when recessions are going to occur).

Yeah, while the long-term prospects for the GOP are particularly morbid in the places that matter most, I certainly wouldn't call it "dead." Trumpism and white nationalism as a potent force will probably be "dead" once the GOP realizes that those ideologies aren't ideologies that will be politically sustainable (unless they want to be relegated to Appalachia, the Rust Belt and the Plains).
But I also refuse to believe that the GOP won't win in the future. They certainly will. That unknown person will probably be pretty different from the average Republican now, though.

-David Duke won? Last time I checked, the Junior Senator from Louisiana was John Kennedy, a pretty bog-standard conservative. If you're pretending White nationalism is the core of the GOP, then you should expect the South to stay in the Republican column, as well. In any case, though Trump did drive a stake into the GOP's advantage in the fast-growing counties, Bob Dole didn't win even when the GOP had that advantage with yuge clarity.

In former times (2012) American politics was based around the famous marriage gap. Trump added a non-college vote touch to it (which has certainly helped the GOP in the short term, and will probably help it become a sensible party in the long term).

Trumpism is a better ideology for the Republican Party than Hillaryism 2016 is for the Democrats.

you were halfway there with this post... you almost admitted that going after non-college whites at the expense of everyone else was helpful in the short term but disastrous in the long term...  why will you not cede the fact that the minority share of the population is growing fairly rapidly?

-Nope; the Abraham Lincoln states are a great place to set up shop for a permanent electoral college advantage. Just ask the 1880s GOP. The only mistakes Trump made were insufficient attention to New Hampshire, Minnesota, and the House.

And Trump overperformed Willard 2012 with Blacks (certainly, everywhere) and Hispanics (though with a big urban-rural divide here) as well.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

No party's dead, and the GOP winning the popular vote for the presidency (why do people ignore the House?) only once since 1988 says absolutely nothing whatsoever about its prospects of winning the popular vote going forward (unless one can reliably predict when recessions are going to occur).

Yeah, while the long-term prospects for the GOP are particularly morbid in the places that matter most, I certainly wouldn't call it "dead." Trumpism and white nationalism as a potent force will probably be "dead" once the GOP realizes that those ideologies aren't ideologies that will be politically sustainable (unless they want to be relegated to Appalachia, the Rust Belt and the Plains).
But I also refuse to believe that the GOP won't win in the future. They certainly will. That unknown person will probably be pretty different from the average Republican now, though.

-David Duke won? Last time I checked, the Junior Senator from Louisiana was John Kennedy, a pretty bog-standard conservative. If you're pretending White nationalism is the core of the GOP, then you should expect the South to stay in the Republican column, as well. In any case, though Trump did drive a stake into the GOP's advantage in the fast-growing counties, Bob Dole didn't win even when the GOP had that advantage with yuge clarity.

In former times (2012) American politics was based around the famous marriage gap. Trump added a non-college vote touch to it (which has certainly helped the GOP in the short term, and will probably help it become a sensible party in the long term).

Trumpism is a better ideology for the Republican Party than Hillaryism 2016 is for the Democrats.

From my perspective, white nationalism=white identity politics, just on a toned-down level. And as for your last sentence, I can't wait to see you try to win elections in the 2020's and 2030's on a national level with Trumpism. By all means!

-So why didn't Duke win, if that's what Louisiana voters really wanted? Trump's arguments on immigration were bipartisan consensus in the 1920s (from which decade most of his beliefs seem to come from).

Trumpism's future success depends on its incentives to affordable family formation and the scope and size of its restrictions on immigration.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

No party's dead, and the GOP winning the popular vote for the presidency (why do people ignore the House?) only once since 1988 says absolutely nothing whatsoever about its prospects of winning the popular vote going forward (unless one can reliably predict when recessions are going to occur).

Yeah, while the long-term prospects for the GOP are particularly morbid in the places that matter most, I certainly wouldn't call it "dead." Trumpism and white nationalism as a potent force will probably be "dead" once the GOP realizes that those ideologies aren't ideologies that will be politically sustainable (unless they want to be relegated to Appalachia, the Rust Belt and the Plains).
But I also refuse to believe that the GOP won't win in the future. They certainly will. That unknown person will probably be pretty different from the average Republican now, though.

-David Duke won? Last time I checked, the Junior Senator from Louisiana was John Kennedy, a pretty bog-standard conservative. If you're pretending White nationalism is the core of the GOP, then you should expect the South to stay in the Republican column, as well. In any case, though Trump did drive a stake into the GOP's advantage in the fast-growing counties, Bob Dole didn't win even when the GOP had that advantage with yuge clarity.

In former times (2012) American politics was based around the famous marriage gap. Trump added a non-college vote touch to it (which has certainly helped the GOP in the short term, and will probably help it become a sensible party in the long term).

Trumpism is a better ideology for the Republican Party than Hillaryism 2016 is for the Democrats.

you were halfway there with this post... you almost admitted that going after non-college whites at the expense of everyone else was helpful in the short term but disastrous in the long term...  why will you not cede the fact that the minority share of the population is growing fairly rapidly?

-Nope; the Abraham Lincoln states are a great place to set up shop for a permanent electoral college advantage. Just ask the 1880s GOP. The only mistakes Trump made were insufficient attention to New Hampshire, Minnesota, and the House.

And Trump overperformed Willard 2012 with Blacks (certainly, everywhere) and Hispanics (though with a big urban-rural divide here) as well.

This will not work.  If Democrats start winning Texas and Florida because Republicans have completely written off minorities and white college educated voters, the GOP can win the entire midwest, probably Illinois too, and it won't do them any good, except for maybe in the Senate.

-The GOP should definitely write off elitist hacks. Black voting patterns are a mystery to me (they seem to be entirely irrational), and Blacks seem to be more a liability to any party they vote for than an asset (1968, 2014, 1984). Hispanic outreach is the sexy thing to do, but the time for that is when Hispanics exceed the non-college White population.

[SCNCmod]

They will adapt, but there are two concerns for them:

1) There could be a civil war in the party

2) Some states will be long gone regardless of how they adapt because of how polarized the electorate is... for instance, most specifically, in the south... it's a very polarized, black/white electorate (for lack of a better term)... it's probably going to stay that way.  So when Georgia and North Carolina become more minority than white or close to it... those states are going to go Democrat and probably never come back to the GOP.  In turn, the GOP will probably need to make up for this by targeting states that are unheard of now, like Connecticut and Oregon... but to do so would mean they'd have to fundamentally change their positions on a vast array of issues that are core to the party... which brings me back to point 1 above...

Another factor in states like NC & GA (along with rising % of latinos) ... is population growth attributed to out of state, Dem-leaning voters moving to places like Atlanta, Charlotte & Research Triangle (Raleigh-Durham).  

A Similar (but slower moving) situation in SC... Dem-leaning voters moving to coastal towns (Grand Strand, Charleston, Hilton Head) and to some extent Greenville.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

No party's dead, and the GOP winning the popular vote for the presidency (why do people ignore the House?) only once since 1988 says absolutely nothing whatsoever about its prospects of winning the popular vote going forward (unless one can reliably predict when recessions are going to occur).

Yeah, while the long-term prospects for the GOP are particularly morbid in the places that matter most, I certainly wouldn't call it "dead." Trumpism and white nationalism as a potent force will probably be "dead" once the GOP realizes that those ideologies aren't ideologies that will be politically sustainable (unless they want to be relegated to Appalachia, the Rust Belt and the Plains).
But I also refuse to believe that the GOP won't win in the future. They certainly will. That unknown person will probably be pretty different from the average Republican now, though.

-David Duke won? Last time I checked, the Junior Senator from Louisiana was John Kennedy, a pretty bog-standard conservative. If you're pretending White nationalism is the core of the GOP, then you should expect the South to stay in the Republican column, as well. In any case, though Trump did drive a stake into the GOP's advantage in the fast-growing counties, Bob Dole didn't win even when the GOP had that advantage with yuge clarity.

In former times (2012) American politics was based around the famous marriage gap. Trump added a non-college vote touch to it (which has certainly helped the GOP in the short term, and will probably help it become a sensible party in the long term).

Trumpism is a better ideology for the Republican Party than Hillaryism 2016 is for the Democrats.

From my perspective, white nationalism=white identity politics, just on a toned-down level. And as for your last sentence, I can't wait to see you try to win elections in the 2020's and 2030's on a national level with Trumpism. By all means!

-So why didn't Duke win, if that's what Louisiana voters really wanted? Trump's arguments on immigration were bipartisan consensus in the 1920s (from which decade most of his beliefs seem to come from).

Trumpism's future success depends on its incentives to affordable family formation and the scope and size of its restrictions on immigration.

Duke didn't win because his campaign wasn't taken seriously.  But that doesn't necessarily mean a lot of voters didn't agree with his positions. 

-Trump didn't win because his campaign wasn't taken seriously. And that's how Marco became president. Oh, wait, that's alternative history. If voters agree with a candidate most, they vote for him.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Where in the world did my "elitist hacks" post go?

[SCNCmod]

They will adapt, but there are two concerns for them:

1) There could be a civil war in the party

2) Some states will be long gone regardless of how they adapt because of how polarized the electorate is... for instance, most specifically, in the south... it's a very polarized, black/white electorate (for lack of a better term)... it's probably going to stay that way.  So when Georgia and North Carolina become more minority than white or close to it... those states are going to go Democrat and probably never come back to the GOP.  In turn, the GOP will probably need to make up for this by targeting states that are unheard of now, like Connecticut and Oregon... but to do so would mean they'd have to fundamentally change their positions on a vast array of issues that are core to the party... which brings me back to point 1 above...

Another factor in states like NC & GA (along with rising % of latinos) ... is population growth attributed to out of state, Dem-leaning voters moving to places like Atlanta, Charlotte & Research Triangle (Raleigh-Durham). 

A Similar (but slower moving) situation in SC... Dem-leaning voters moving to coastal towns (Grand Strand, Charleston, Hilton Head) and to some extent Greenville.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

They will adapt, but there are two concerns for them:

1) There could be a civil war in the party

2) Some states will be long gone regardless of how they adapt because of how polarized the electorate is... for instance, most specifically, in the south... it's a very polarized, black/white electorate (for lack of a better term)... it's probably going to stay that way.  So when Georgia and North Carolina become more minority than white or close to it... those states are going to go Democrat and probably never come back to the GOP.  In turn, the GOP will probably need to make up for this by targeting states that are unheard of now, like Connecticut and Oregon... but to do so would mean they'd have to fundamentally change their positions on a vast array of issues that are core to the party... which brings me back to point 1 above...

Another factor in states like NC & GA (along with rising % of latinos) ... is population growth attributed to out of state, Dem-leaning voters moving to places like Atlanta, Charlotte & Research Triangle (Raleigh-Durham). 

A Similar (but slower moving) situation in SC... Dem-leaning voters moving to coastal towns (Grand Strand, Charleston, Hilton Head) and to some extent Greenville.

-For every Virginia, there's a Missouri.

[SCNCmod]

They will adapt, but there are two concerns for them:

1) There could be a civil war in the party

2) Some states will be long gone regardless of how they adapt because of how polarized the electorate is... for instance, most specifically, in the south... it's a very polarized, black/white electorate (for lack of a better term)... it's probably going to stay that way.  So when Georgia and North Carolina become more minority than white or close to it... those states are going to go Democrat and probably never come back to the GOP.  In turn, the GOP will probably need to make up for this by targeting states that are unheard of now, like Connecticut and Oregon... but to do so would mean they'd have to fundamentally change their positions on a vast array of issues that are core to the party... which brings me back to point 1 above...

Another factor in states like NC & GA (along with rising % of latinos) ... is population growth attributed to out of state, Dem-leaning voters moving to places like Atlanta, Charlotte & Research Triangle (Raleigh-Durham).  

A Similar (but slower moving) situation in SC... Dem-leaning voters moving to coastal towns (Grand Strand, Charleston, Hilton Head) and to some extent Greenville.

Yup, this is exactly what provided the winning formula for Democrats in Virginia.  I think GA will be the next domino to fall.  Seems like it's shifting faster than NC.  2008 was kind of a fluke.

You could be correct... although I think they will probably fall at the same time... Georgia is moving there more quickly... but NC has a little of a head start. 

Also- reapportionment will likely advantage Dems based on 2020 census (and certainly based on 2030 census.. espically if Dems are still the party of a coalition of minorities & larger city whites)

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

They will adapt, but there are two concerns for them:

1) There could be a civil war in the party

2) Some states will be long gone regardless of how they adapt because of how polarized the electorate is... for instance, most specifically, in the south... it's a very polarized, black/white electorate (for lack of a better term)... it's probably going to stay that way.  So when Georgia and North Carolina become more minority than white or close to it... those states are going to go Democrat and probably never come back to the GOP.  In turn, the GOP will probably need to make up for this by targeting states that are unheard of now, like Connecticut and Oregon... but to do so would mean they'd have to fundamentally change their positions on a vast array of issues that are core to the party... which brings me back to point 1 above...

Another factor in states like NC & GA (along with rising % of latinos) ... is population growth attributed to out of state, Dem-leaning voters moving to places like Atlanta, Charlotte & Research Triangle (Raleigh-Durham). 

A Similar (but slower moving) situation in SC... Dem-leaning voters moving to coastal towns (Grand Strand, Charleston, Hilton Head) and to some extent Greenville.

-For every Virginia, there's a Missouri.

And...the only real targets for "the next Missouri" are Minnesota, Maine, and New Hampshire, and that assumes that Trump's <1% wins in the Upper Midwest weren't a one-time deal. Meanwhile, the Democrats' "next Virginia" is basically all the populous states in the Sun Belt: FL, TX, GA, NC, AZ... All are growing and will far outpace any "next Missouri" states.

Spot on.

-Trump won Florida by a larger margin than Romney lost it. It has no equivalent to the DC suburbs.

[SCNCmod]

The 3 states with noticeable shifts towards Dems this Presidential election were: Texas, Arizona, & Georgia (Utah also.. but that was more situational specific).

That says a lot about the trend in TX/ AZ/ GA going forward (since the natural trend for almost all states should have been towards Republicans given that Dems won in 2012 & lost in 2016)... These 3 states comprise 65 Electoral Votes (probably closer to 70 EVs after the 2020 consensus)

Latino's have by far the lowest % of registered eligible voters.... So, If Dems have an aggressive & competent Latino registration effort in AZ/TX/GA/(& Puerto Rican Latinos in FL) over the next 4 year.... FL & AZ will likely go Dem in 2020... & GA will be a tight battle ground... (& TX would be a lot closer than most ppl think... esp is Castro were to be on the ticket)

BTW, the actual gains by Dems in these 3 states were:
Texas: +7.0
Arizona: +5.5
Georgia: +3.5

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

They will adapt, but there are two concerns for them:

1) There could be a civil war in the party

2) Some states will be long gone regardless of how they adapt because of how polarized the electorate is... for instance, most specifically, in the south... it's a very polarized, black/white electorate (for lack of a better term)... it's probably going to stay that way.  So when Georgia and North Carolina become more minority than white or close to it... those states are going to go Democrat and probably never come back to the GOP.  In turn, the GOP will probably need to make up for this by targeting states that are unheard of now, like Connecticut and Oregon... but to do so would mean they'd have to fundamentally change their positions on a vast array of issues that are core to the party... which brings me back to point 1 above...

Another factor in states like NC & GA (along with rising % of latinos) ... is population growth attributed to out of state, Dem-leaning voters moving to places like Atlanta, Charlotte & Research Triangle (Raleigh-Durham). 

A Similar (but slower moving) situation in SC... Dem-leaning voters moving to coastal towns (Grand Strand, Charleston, Hilton Head) and to some extent Greenville.

-For every Virginia, there's a Missouri.

And...the only real targets for "the next Missouri" are Minnesota, Maine, and New Hampshire, and that assumes that Trump's <1% wins in the Upper Midwest weren't a one-time deal. Meanwhile, the Democrats' "next Virginia" is basically all the populous states in the Sun Belt: FL, TX, GA, NC, AZ... All are growing and will far outpace any "next Missouri" states.

Spot on.

-Trump won Florida by a larger margin than Romney lost it. It has no equivalent to the DC suburbs.

Dude, for the 270th time, the same Millennial vote you like to brag about that portends great news for Republicans in parts of the Midwest spell absolute calamity in Florida, Georgia, Arizona, Texas, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, and even Illinois and Michigan, oddly enough. Sure, Florida's probably less at risk of becoming a D-leaning state than many others on this list simply due to the number of retirees it attracts, but these long-term indicators are horrendous. Hillary won the young demographics in all these states by 20-30 points. She even won that group in California by 55 LOL (that's probably all but like two congressional districts, if you're extrapolating that!).

-When did I brag about the millennial vote?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Again, when are Hispanics going to outnumber non-college Whites?