Which state is more likely to vote Democratic again first?

[TDAS04]

In the unlikely event that there's a Democratic landslide in the near future, or if there's a major shift in voting habits sometime down the rode, or something.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Nebraska was six points less republican, with Arkansas having a Clinton on ballot, and somewhat more elastic, and they trended equally republican despite Clinton being on ballot. Democrats will win Nebraska well before they win Arkansas.

[RINO Tom]

Arkansas, obviously (RINO Tom).  Really not close.

[Santander]

Obviously Nebraska.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Arkansas. The interior plains states have been solidly Republican since the 60's and throughout all of our history. Populist movements (save WJB in 1896) virtually never crack these states. Deep southern states on the other hand have been subject to large swings back and forth. Southern whites have shifted their alliances a number of times and they have a very unique political identity.

[Xing]

Neither is likely, but if the Omaha area grows enough and turnout is high enough, I would say Nebraska would be more likely.

[Beet]

Arkansas is filled with poor, unhealthy people who live unhealthy lifestyles. The state should be the heart of the Democratic party, unfortunately it hasn't since Bill Clinton. Nebraska is just about the opposite, even if one ignores its role as a natal twin of the GOP, thanks to Stephen Douglas. It's Republican past was well justified and there's nothing on the horizon to suggest otherwise. Woe is the day the Democrats win Nebraska while losing Arkansas, they should take down the donkey at party headquarters and replace it with an elephant, then rename themselves the Republican party.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Arkansas is filled with poor, unhealthy people who live unhealthy lifestyles. The state should be the heart of the Democratic party, unfortunately it hasn't since Bill Clinton. Nebraska is just about the opposite, even if one ignores its role as a natal twin of the GOP, thanks to Stephen Douglas. It's Republican past was well justified and there's nothing on the horizon to suggest otherwise. Woe is the day the Democrats win Nebraska while losing Arkansas, they should take down the donkey at party headquarters and replace it with an elephant, then rename themselves the Republican party.

In 1992, West Virginia was the heart and soul of the democratic party, and Vermont of the republicans. Parties and states change.

[Beet]

Certain eternal values hold true. The Republicans have always been the party of "natives", elites, and the prudish, and Democrats "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion." This has been true since 1856, and before that was true between the Whigs and Democrats, and before that between the Federalists and Republicans.

[TDAS04]

I was one of the people who believed that Bill's wife would perform significantly better than Obama did in Appalachia and Ozarkia.  I even thought (at least early on) that Hillary would have a decent shot at winning Missouri and Arkansas, and that she could do well in West Virginia and Kentucky.  I feel stupid now.

[Skunk]

I was one of the people who believed that Bill's wife would perform significantly better than Obama did in Appalachia and Ozarkia.  I even thought (at least early on) that Hillary would have a decent shot at winning Missouri and Arkansas, and that she could do well in West Virginia and Kentucky.  I feel stupid now.

For what it's worth that was true in 2008, probably.

[RINO Tom]

Certain eternal values hold true. The Republicans have always been the party of "natives", elites, and the prudish, and Democrats "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion." This has been true since 1856, and before that was true between the Whigs and Democrats, and before that between the Federalists and Republicans.

I largely believe this.  The "spirits" of the parties are remarkably consistent when you look past the window dressing.  The snarky elite academic who'd laugh at corny patriotic sayings would, IMO, be a Democrat in 1856, 1956 and 2056.  Things like slavery tend to be viewed in 2017 terms, where supporting it would be "behind the times" or "reactionary" and therefore a mark of being dumb and unenlightened, but that's really not how people saw it.

Anyway, TN Vol, I appreciate your opinion.  I don't think AR is a "Democratic state at heart" (whatever that means), but I think its affiliation with the GOP - while strong - is more fragile than Nebraska's.  The very Republican Omaha area growing would not change that, too.  AR is a better candidate to eventually flip, IMO, because it has a higher Black population, a more populist tradition and - as Timmy pointed out - the South has been more willing to flip around its politics with wild swings than other regions.  Nebraska will continue to support a GOP that is pro-business (which, despite many people's attitudes here, equates to pro-farmer ... farmers don't vote Republican because they're "rednecks") and represent traditional fiscal conservatism.  Trump is both, and his successor will be both.  Arkansas largely supports the GOP because of its hatred of the national Democratic Party rather than some deep attachment to the principles of the GOP, IMO.  People from Arkansas might think of Democrats as minorities and urban coastal people and snobby academics or whatever (I don't know!), but I CAN tell you that people in Nebraska who are Republicans don't look at politics as this culture war that many Southerners and people on the coasts do; they view Democrats as lazy, they don't want to identify with a party that gives anyone "handouts," they worship the "Protestant Work Ethic," they don't think government can effectively help people in economic need on any large scale, etc. 

While I don't think the Democratic Party will represent a less "urban" cultural attitude any time soon, that day will come WELL before the day that your mainstream Republican isn't talking about cutting taxes.

[PragmaticPopulist]

I've gotta say Arkansas is, the main reason being that while both states are culturally conservative, Nebraska is a more business-oriented state. More agriculture-oriented, and has a higher per-capita income than Arkansas. Arkansas also has a more populist history, and is more diverse than Nebraska. Of course, if Omaha and Lincoln become more strongly Democratic, things could change.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Arkansas, obviously (RINO Tom).  Really not close.

How Nebraska voted in the past is pretty irrelevant, because using that same logic, WV would have been more likely to vote D than VA in 2008.

It's very much relevant. You're getting a little too specific when cherry picking individual states. When you look at it from a more regional perspective it does hold true.

I don't necessarily agree that AR is Democratic at heart, but the best predictor of future events is to look towards the past. Southern whites (and to a lesser extent border south whites like WV and KY) have always had a very...peculiar set of political views and aren't a stable voting bloc when compared to the interior plains which have virtually never shifted their alliance to the GOP.

Most important: The only way Democrats are winning either state is if it's a realignment likely spurred by an economic crisis. Arkansas voters will likely have more to lose in such economic turmoil than Nebraska voters do.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Nebraska is poorer than the US, and has a much stronger strain of social liberalism.

[RINO Tom]

^ Yeah, but your last sentence wasn't the question.  Neither state is voting Dem anytime soon, and it's not crazy to think the more swingy of these two super Republican states that at least has a recent history of preferring Democrats is more likely to swing back in the distant future.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

^ Yeah, but your last sentence wasn't the question.  Neither state is voting Dem anytime soon, and it's not crazy to think the more swingy of these two super Republican states that at least has a recent history of preferring Democrats is more likely to swing back in the distant future.

Nebraska was somewhat closer and more elastic.

[PoliticalShelter]

What people seem to forget about with Arkansa is there has been significant demographic change in the state, with population loss in the delta area, the most democratic part of the state.
 Meanwhile the north west portion of the state (the most tradioanlly republican part of the state) has seen significant growth with transplant flowing in the state (and these aren't the liberal transplant like the ones migrating to Virginia and North Carolina.

[Technocracy Timmy]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's be honest. Nobody is going to migrate to Nebraska of all places. I went to the Lincoln and Omaha area for a wrestling camp in high school and it's definitely not gonna be attracting people who vote Democrat anytime soon. There's absolutely no upside to moving there vs. Arkansas. Migration patterns for millennials, minorities, etc. anybody who might actually vote for a Democrat won't be heading to Nebraska. They're either going to liberal states because of the cities (NYC, LA, SF, DC, etc.) or they're going to the sunbelt. So the idea that Omaha will become an Austin, TX-like hotbed is almost certainly out of the question

The simple idea of either of these states going for a Democrat is predicated entirely on a realignment. There's no way any Democrat wins either state unless they've completely broken our politically polarized environment. Realignments are usually driven in large part by economics and when you look at Nebraska (which is right there with the US median income) and compare it to Arkansas (one of the poorest states in the country) then it's very obvious that a realignment spurred by economic grievances will best be targeted in the poorest parts of the country ergo Arkansas/Deep South/Appalachia.

The plains states like Nebraska and Wyoming would be the strongest base of support for a Republican in a Democratic realigning election. Not just because of the traditional GOP margin of victory, not just because they've had unwavering support for the GOP for the past 50 years, but also because they have less to lose in a strong economic crisis spurring a realignment when compared to the Deep South and Appalachian states. That's the crux of it. You have to ask yourself what on earth would cause either of these states to turn blue, and the answer is most likely a very strong economic hit against them. Liberal migration to Nebraska isn't going to flip it first.

We'll be waiting forever for liberals to turn Nebraska blue

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's be honest. Nobody is going to migrate to Nebraska of all places. I went to the Lincoln and Omaha area for a wrestling camp in high school and it's definitely not gonna be attracting people who vote Democrat anytime soon. There's absolutely no upside to moving there vs. Arkansas. Migration patterns for millennials, minorities, etc. anybody who might actually vote for a Democrat won't be heading to Nebraska. They're either going to liberal states because of the cities (NYC, LA, SF, DC, etc.) or they're going to the sunbelt. So the idea that Omaha will become an Austin, TX-like hotbed is almost certainly out of the question

The simple idea of either of these states going for a Democrat is predicated entirely on a realignment. There's no way any Democrat wins either state unless they've completely broken our politically polarized environment. Realignments are usually driven in large part by economics and when you look at Nebraska (which is right there with the US median income) and compare it to Arkansas (one of the poorest states in the country) then it's very obvious that a realignment spurred by economic grievances will best be targeted in the poorest parts of the country ergo Arkansas/Deep South/Appalachia.

The plains states like Nebraska and Wyoming would be the strongest base of support for a Republican in a Democratic realigning election. Not just because of the traditional GOP margin of victory, not just because they've had unwavering support for the GOP for the past 50 years, but also because they have less to lose in a strong economic crisis spurring a realignment when compared to the Deep South and Appalachian states. That's the crux of it. You have to ask yourself what on earth would cause either of these states to turn blue, and the answer is most likely a very strong economic hit against them. Liberal migration to Nebraska isn't going to flip it first.

We'll be waiting forever for liberals to turn Nebraska blue

A realignment won't neccesarily be "populist" democrats.

[Technocracy Timmy]

A realignment isn't gonna feature technocratic democrats. They always fail at the ballot box (Gore, Kerry, Clinton) when compared to folks like Obama who actually broke the southern firewall with victories in VA, NC, and FL.

Most importantly, populism has been in the making for 35 years and isn't going away anytime soon. There's a very strong macroeconomic underpinning to virtually every populist political movement in western countries and until our leadership deals with that, these movements aren't going away. The GOP has no interest in fixing any of these issues and so the void will have to filled by the Democrats.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

A realignment isn't gonna feature technocratic democrats. They always fail at the ballot box (Gore, Kerry, Clinton) when compared to folks like Obama who actually broke the southern firewall with victories in VA, NC, and FL.

Most importantly, populism has been in the making for 35 years and isn't going away anytime soon. There's a very strong macroeconomic underpinning to virtually every populist political movement in western countries and until our leadership deals with that, these movements aren't going away. The GOP has no interest in fixing any of these issues and so the void will have to filled by the Democrats.

Gore lost by 1 vote in the supreme court and a few hundred in Florida.

[MT Treasurer]

We can argue about this until the cows come home. You're making some good points (and I must say you and TD have come up with an interesting theory), but there is no way to know for sure that this will actually happen, so be careful when making confident predictions about major electoral realignments.

This is all really just guessing and wishful thinking, and there is no data to back this up, because again.. it's all speculation.

[Sumner 1868]

Though the "everyone who voted for Clinton in 1996 south of Mason-Dixon died" is a popular belief with much of Atlas, it's pretty obvious that thousands of people who voted Democratic in the 90s are not dead and now vote Republican. It would be far harder getting those people to return than to win over a place you never had.

[Technocracy Timmy]

We can argue about this until the cows come home. You're making some good points (and I must say you and TD have come up with an interesting theory), but there is no way to know for sure that this will actually happen, so be careful when making confident predictions about major electoral realignments.

This is all really just guessing and wishful thinking, and there is no data to back this up, because again.. it's all speculation.

I think I made a pretty good case that there's a macroeconomic underpinning to political realignments. The FDR realignment was clearly spurred by the Great Depression, but the Reagan realignment came from economic forces as well