How would a map look like if the parties platform was like this

[OSR stands with Israel]

Democratic:

Supported Raising Taxes on anyone making more then 75k

Supports more government  regulations

Supports Single Payer Healthcare

Supports 15 dollar min wage

Supports repealing Taft-Hartley

Opposes Free Trade and is very protectionist

Opposes H1B visa  as they believe it harms workers

Supports major infrastructure spending in the rust belt ,Appalachia , and farming states

Isolationist foreign policy

Supports Green New Deal

Republicans:

Supports cutting business taxes (on all business just not corporate)

Supports cutting spending across the board to balance the budget

Supports an Affordable Care Act type healthcare system

Supports getting rid of regulations that harm small business

Supports Free Trade

Supports raising min wage to 10 dollars then adjust to inflation

Supports increasing amount of H1B visas

Supports a more interventionist foreign policy

Supports solving the issue of climate change by trying to encourage innovation and reducing price of alternative energy



On Social Issues it would be like this:

Southern Dem: Center-Right, Northern Dem: Leftist ; Southern Repub: Right Wing, Northern Repub: Center-Left

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Given that this is basically shifting half the democratic party to the republicans in exchange for a few WWC voters, not good for Democrats.

And I'm being generous.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Given that this is basically shifting half the democratic party to the republicans in exchange for a few WWC voters, not good for Democrats.

And I'm being generous.

With Dems being more socially conservative in the south wouldn't that take the issue if the table and they could possibly win those states . Also Dems would not lose New York and Illinois

[RINO Tom]

Given that this is basically shifting half the democratic party to the republicans in exchange for a few WWC voters, not good for Democrats.

And I'm being generous.

Hardly.

[PoliticalShelter]

Given that this is basically shifting half the democratic party to the republicans in exchange for a few WWC voters, not good for Democrats.

And I'm being generous.

With Dems being more socially conservative in the south wouldn't that take the issue if the table and they could possibly win those states . Also Dems would not lose New York and Illinois

Or California and Massachusetts

[PoliticalShelter]

Anyway if we are going for the good old "Democratic Party led by Bernie sanders" vs "Republican Party led by Charlie Baker" then this is what a close election would roughly end up looking like:

Anyway it wouldn't be as different as you'd think. Republicans would improve their performance in the northeast enough to start winning some states. Meanwhile the democrats would improve their numbers with southern rural whites enough to start winning some of the states in the southeast coastal area.

Overall the main effect wouldn't be a completely alien map, but more of a less polarised map, with red states and blue states moving closer to the centre, while still remaining in their respective parties.

Oh yeah and the Midwest would still be a swing area.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Given that this is basically shifting half the democratic party to the republicans in exchange for a few WWC voters, not good for Democrats.

And I'm being generous.

With Dems being more socially conservative in the south wouldn't that take the issue if the table and they could possibly win those states . Also Dems would not lose New York and Illinois

Or California and Massachusetts

Mass would definitely still be dem , I think Cali would only be lean dem though cause of their immigration stance

[OSR stands with Israel]

I think this would be the map

GOP 280
Dem 258

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

To all the people who are posting competitive maps, you are either interpreting this differently, or wrong. In the US of 2016, an election between Charlie Baker and Elizabeth Warren might be competitive in Massachusetts. An election between Phil Scott and Bernie Sanders might be competitive in Vermont. A democratic primary between a new democrat and a social democrat might be competitive. But in a general election in the US, all of those would be massive landslides. An election where the republican candidate wins a third of Clinton voters and 90% of trump voters in not competitive. The democrats here would do worse with hispanics. Worse with asians. Worse with blacks. Worse with college educated whites. They would very likely do worse with non college educated whites. The only demographic they would win would be blacks, and them by a much reduced margin. In practice, this setup would be insustainable. The republicans would be pulled right by their base. The democrats would moderate to win.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Given that this is basically shifting half the democratic party to the republicans in exchange for a few WWC voters, not good for Democrats.

And I'm being generous.

With Dems being more socially conservative in the south wouldn't that take the issue if the table and they could possibly win those states . Also Dems would not lose New York and Illinois

Social issues would matter less, but they still would matter. Meanwhile, the democrats pacificism and far left economic agenda would be excellent replacement wedge issues. They would suffer losses in both whites and blacks.
This election would resemble 1988 if you made it less favorable to Democrats. New York could easily flip.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Anyway if we are going for the good old "Democratic Party led by Bernie sanders" vs "Republican Party led by Charlie Baker" then this is what a close election would roughly end up looking like:

Anyway it wouldn't be as different as you'd think. Republicans would improve their performance in the northeast enough to start winning some states. Meanwhile the democrats would improve their numbers with southern rural whites enough to start winning some of the states in the southeast coastal area.

Overall the main effect wouldn't be a completely alien map, but more of a less polarised map, with red states and blue states moving closer to the centre, while still remaining in their respective parties.

Oh yeah and the Midwest would still be a swing area.
[/quote
I agree that that is a reasonable close election map. However, this wouldn't be close.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Given that this is basically shifting half the democratic party to the republicans in exchange for a few WWC voters, not good for Democrats.

And I'm being generous.

With Dems being more socially conservative in the south wouldn't that take the issue if the table and they could possibly win those states . Also Dems would not lose New York and Illinois

Or California and Massachusetts

Mass would definitely still be dem , I think Cali would only be lean dem though cause of their immigration stance

Massachusetts would be lean Dem, probably. Winnable for republicans, but Democrats would probably be slightly favored. California would be solid R. Hispanics and Asians would not be democratic, and college educated whites would shift heavily republican.

[PoliticalShelter]

Given that this is basically shifting half the democratic party to the republicans in exchange for a few WWC voters, not good for Democrats.

And I'm being generous.

With Dems being more socially conservative in the south wouldn't that take the issue if the table and they could possibly win those states . Also Dems would not lose New York and Illinois

Or California and Massachusetts

Mass would definitely still be dem , I think Cali would only be lean dem though cause of their immigration stance

Massachusetts would be lean Dem, probably. Winnable for republicans, but Democrats would probably be slightly favored. California would be solid R. Hispanics and Asians would not be democratic, and college educated whites would shift heavily republican.

Please explain why Hispanics would vote for the economically right wing party, especially since the HB1 visas primarly benefit Asians and Europeans, unless you think that Hispanics vote democratic because of social issues or some other nonsense.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Anyway if we are going for the good old "Democratic Party led by Bernie sanders" vs "Republican Party led by Charlie Baker" then this is what a close election would roughly end up looking like:

Anyway it wouldn't be as different as you'd think. Republicans would improve their performance in the northeast enough to start winning some states. Meanwhile the democrats would improve their numbers with southern rural whites enough to start winning some of the states in the southeast coastal area.

Overall the main effect wouldn't be a completely alien map, but more of a less polarised map, with red states and blue states moving closer to the centre, while still remaining in their respective parties.

Oh yeah and the Midwest would still be a swing area.
[/quote
I agree that that is a reasonable close election map. However, this wouldn't be close.

1988 was only a landslide cause Bush was vp to a popular president in good times and Dukakis ran a horrible campaign.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Given that this is basically shifting half the democratic party to the republicans in exchange for a few WWC voters, not good for Democrats.

And I'm being generous.

With Dems being more socially conservative in the south wouldn't that take the issue if the table and they could possibly win those states . Also Dems would not lose New York and Illinois

Or California and Massachusetts

Mass would definitely still be dem , I think Cali would only be lean dem though cause of their immigration stance

Massachusetts would be lean Dem, probably. Winnable for republicans, but Democrats would probably be slightly favored. California would be solid R. Hispanics and Asians would not be democratic, and college educated whites would shift heavily republican.

If you can tell this is basically 1980s Republicans vs 1960s Democrats

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Given that this is basically shifting half the democratic party to the republicans in exchange for a few WWC voters, not good for Democrats.

And I'm being generous.

With Dems being more socially conservative in the south wouldn't that take the issue if the table and they could possibly win those states . Also Dems would not lose New York and Illinois

Or California and Massachusetts

Mass would definitely still be dem , I think Cali would only be lean dem though cause of their immigration stance

Massachusetts would be lean Dem, probably. Winnable for republicans, but Democrats would probably be slightly favored. California would be solid R. Hispanics and Asians would not be democratic, and college educated whites would shift heavily republican.

Please explain why Hispanics would vote for the economically right wing party, especially since the HB1 visas primarly benefit Asians and Europeans, unless you think that Hispanics vote democratic because of social issues or some other nonsense.

The pro-immigration, socially centrist party is a lot closer to them than the nativist left.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Anyway if we are going for the good old "Democratic Party led by Bernie sanders" vs "Republican Party led by Charlie Baker" then this is what a close election would roughly end up looking like:

Anyway it wouldn't be as different as you'd think. Republicans would improve their performance in the northeast enough to start winning some states. Meanwhile the democrats would improve their numbers with southern rural whites enough to start winning some of the states in the southeast coastal area.

Overall the main effect wouldn't be a completely alien map, but more of a less polarised map, with red states and blue states moving closer to the centre, while still remaining in their respective parties.

Oh yeah and the Midwest would still be a swing area.
[/quote
I agree that that is a reasonable close election map. However, this wouldn't be close.

1988 was only a landslide cause Bush was vp to a popular president in good times and Dukakis ran a horrible campaign.

If you run a far-left candidate against a center/center left candidate, you will lose.

[PoliticalShelter]

Given that this is basically shifting half the democratic party to the republicans in exchange for a few WWC voters, not good for Democrats.

And I'm being generous.

With Dems being more socially conservative in the south wouldn't that take the issue if the table and they could possibly win those states . Also Dems would not lose New York and Illinois

Or California and Massachusetts

Mass would definitely still be dem , I think Cali would only be lean dem though cause of their immigration stance

Massachusetts would be lean Dem, probably. Winnable for republicans, but Democrats would probably be slightly favored. California would be solid R. Hispanics and Asians would not be democratic, and college educated whites would shift heavily republican.

Please explain why Hispanics would vote for the economically right wing party, especially since the HB1 visas primarly benefit Asians and Europeans, unless you think that Hispanics vote democratic because of social issues or some other nonsense.

The pro-immigration, socially centrist party is a lot closer to them than the nativist left.

No it really isn't.

Also why do Hispanics care about a program that for the most part, they don't benefit from. The reason they care about a pathway to citizenship is because they personally know or are related to many of those undocumented immigrants. That is (mostly) not the case for those on HB1 visas.

Also I'm pretty sure these democrats are not going to try and racialise the program and will attack the program on economic grounds, which hispanics and working class Asians will certainly not be bothered.

[PoliticalShelter]

Anyway if we are going for the good old "Democratic Party led by Bernie sanders" vs "Republican Party led by Charlie Baker" then this is what a close election would roughly end up looking like:

Anyway it wouldn't be as different as you'd think. Republicans would improve their performance in the northeast enough to start winning some states. Meanwhile the democrats would improve their numbers with southern rural whites enough to start winning some of the states in the southeast coastal area.

Overall the main effect wouldn't be a completely alien map, but more of a less polarised map, with red states and blue states moving closer to the centre, while still remaining in their respective parties.

Oh yeah and the Midwest would still be a swing area.

I agree that that is a reasonable close election map. However, this wouldn't be close.

1988 was only a landslide cause Bush was vp to a popular president in good times and Dukakis ran a horrible campaign.

If you run a far-left candidate against a center/center left candidate, you will lose.

2/10

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Given that this is basically shifting half the democratic party to the republicans in exchange for a few WWC voters, not good for Democrats.

And I'm being generous.

With Dems being more socially conservative in the south wouldn't that take the issue if the table and they could possibly win those states . Also Dems would not lose New York and Illinois

Or California and Massachusetts

Mass would definitely still be dem , I think Cali would only be lean dem though cause of their immigration stance

Massachusetts would be lean Dem, probably. Winnable for republicans, but Democrats would probably be slightly favored. California would be solid R. Hispanics and Asians would not be democratic, and college educated whites would shift heavily republican.

Please explain why Hispanics would vote for the economically right wing party, especially since the HB1 visas primarly benefit Asians and Europeans, unless you think that Hispanics vote democratic because of social issues or some other nonsense.

The pro-immigration, socially centrist party is a lot closer to them than the nativist left.

No it really isn't.

Also why do Hispanics care about a program that for the most part, they don't benefit from. The reason they care about a pathway to citizenship is because they personally know or are related to many of those undocumented immigrants. That is (mostly) not the case for those on HB1 visas.

Also I'm pretty sure these democrats are not going to try and racialise the program and will attack the program on economic grounds, which hispanics and working class Asians will certainly not be bothered.

The democrats here would almost certainly be nativist.

[PoliticalShelter]

Given that this is basically shifting half the democratic party to the republicans in exchange for a few WWC voters, not good for Democrats.

And I'm being generous.

With Dems being more socially conservative in the south wouldn't that take the issue if the table and they could possibly win those states . Also Dems would not lose New York and Illinois

Or California and Massachusetts

Mass would definitely still be dem , I think Cali would only be lean dem though cause of their immigration stance

Massachusetts would be lean Dem, probably. Winnable for republicans, but Democrats would probably be slightly favored. California would be solid R. Hispanics and Asians would not be democratic, and college educated whites would shift heavily republican.

Please explain why Hispanics would vote for the economically right wing party, especially since the HB1 visas primarly benefit Asians and Europeans, unless you think that Hispanics vote democratic because of social issues or some other nonsense.

The pro-immigration, socially centrist party is a lot closer to them than the nativist left.

No it really isn't.

Also why do Hispanics care about a program that for the most part, they don't benefit from. The reason they care about a pathway to citizenship is because they personally know or are related to many of those undocumented immigrants. That is (mostly) not the case for those on HB1 visas.

Also I'm pretty sure these democrats are not going to try and racialise the program and will attack the program on economic grounds, which hispanics and working class Asians will certainly not be bothered.

The democrats here would almost certainly be nativist.

Did the OP say that the democrats use nativists language in their campagins? No. And considering this Democratic Party will still comfortably be the party of Hispanics, I very much doubt that they will.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Given that this is basically shifting half the democratic party to the republicans in exchange for a few WWC voters, not good for Democrats.

And I'm being generous.

With Dems being more socially conservative in the south wouldn't that take the issue if the table and they could possibly win those states . Also Dems would not lose New York and Illinois

Or California and Massachusetts

Mass would definitely still be dem , I think Cali would only be lean dem though cause of their immigration stance

Massachusetts would be lean Dem, probably. Winnable for republicans, but Democrats would probably be slightly favored. California would be solid R. Hispanics and Asians would not be democratic, and college educated whites would shift heavily republican.

Please explain why Hispanics would vote for the economically right wing party, especially since the HB1 visas primarly benefit Asians and Europeans, unless you think that Hispanics vote democratic because of social issues or some other nonsense.

The pro-immigration, socially centrist party is a lot closer to them than the nativist left.

No it really isn't.

Also why do Hispanics care about a program that for the most part, they don't benefit from. The reason they care about a pathway to citizenship is because they personally know or are related to many of those undocumented immigrants. That is (mostly) not the case for those on HB1 visas.

Also I'm pretty sure these democrats are not going to try and racialise the program and will attack the program on economic grounds, which hispanics and working class Asians will certainly not be bothered.

The democrats here would almost certainly be nativist.

Did the OP say that the democrats use nativists language in their campagins? No. And considering this Democratic Party will still comfortably be the party of Hispanics, I very much doubt that they will.

A socially left, protectionist is at the least going to do far worse.

[PoliticalShelter]

Given that this is basically shifting half the democratic party to the republicans in exchange for a few WWC voters, not good for Democrats.

And I'm being generous.

With Dems being more socially conservative in the south wouldn't that take the issue if the table and they could possibly win those states . Also Dems would not lose New York and Illinois

Or California and Massachusetts

Mass would definitely still be dem , I think Cali would only be lean dem though cause of their immigration stance

Massachusetts would be lean Dem, probably. Winnable for republicans, but Democrats would probably be slightly favored. California would be solid R. Hispanics and Asians would not be democratic, and college educated whites would shift heavily republican.

Please explain why Hispanics would vote for the economically right wing party, especially since the HB1 visas primarly benefit Asians and Europeans, unless you think that Hispanics vote democratic because of social issues or some other nonsense.

The pro-immigration, socially centrist party is a lot closer to them than the nativist left.

No it really isn't.

Also why do Hispanics care about a program that for the most part, they don't benefit from. The reason they care about a pathway to citizenship is because they personally know or are related to many of those undocumented immigrants. That is (mostly) not the case for those on HB1 visas.

Also I'm pretty sure these democrats are not going to try and racialise the program and will attack the program on economic grounds, which hispanics and working class Asians will certainly not be bothered.

The democrats here would almost certainly be nativist.

Did the OP say that the democrats use nativists language in their campagins? No. And considering this Democratic Party will still comfortably be the party of Hispanics, I very much doubt that they will.

A socially left, protectionist is at the least going to do far worse.

Considering that this is how Obama basically campgained as in 2008, Hispanics seemed to be quite receptive to this campaign, and no a McCain who decided to campaign as his 2000 self, would not have prevented the swing of Hispanics to Obama.

[PoliticalShelter]

Also how would a left wing populist party lose enough minorites for California to become a Solid R state?

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Given that this is basically shifting half the democratic party to the republicans in exchange for a few WWC voters, not good for Democrats.

And I'm being generous.

With Dems being more socially conservative in the south wouldn't that take the issue if the table and they could possibly win those states . Also Dems would not lose New York and Illinois

Or California and Massachusetts

Mass would definitely still be dem , I think Cali would only be lean dem though cause of their immigration stance

Massachusetts would be lean Dem, probably. Winnable for republicans, but Democrats would probably be slightly favored. California would be solid R. Hispanics and Asians would not be democratic, and college educated whites would shift heavily republican.

Please explain why Hispanics would vote for the economically right wing party, especially since the HB1 visas primarly benefit Asians and Europeans, unless you think that Hispanics vote democratic because of social issues or some other nonsense.

The pro-immigration, socially centrist party is a lot closer to them than the nativist left.

No it really isn't.

Also why do Hispanics care about a program that for the most part, they don't benefit from. The reason they care about a pathway to citizenship is because they personally know or are related to many of those undocumented immigrants. That is (mostly) not the case for those on HB1 visas.

Also I'm pretty sure these democrats are not going to try and racialise the program and will attack the program on economic grounds, which hispanics and working class Asians will certainly not be bothered.

The democrats here would almost certainly be nativist.

Did the OP say that the democrats use nativists language in their campagins? No. And considering this Democratic Party will still comfortably be the party of Hispanics, I very much doubt that they will.

A socially left, protectionist is at the least going to do far worse.

Considering that this is how Obama basically campgained as in 2008, Hispanics seemed to be quite receptive to this campaign, and no a McCain who decided to campaign as his 2000 self, would not have prevented the swing of Hispanics to Obama.

Some of his early rhetoric in the democratic primaries was. In reality, he's clearly and strongly pro-immigration and free trade. The "democrats" in this are not.