When will California have fewer votes for the Republican nominee than PA?

[This is Eharding, guys]

See this post. I think it's going to happen at some point, probably in the 2030s.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=269155.0

[Technocracy Timmy]

Donald Trump got the lowest raw total votes of any winning Republican candidate since Richard Nixon in 1968. Nixon in 72', Reagan in 80' and 84', Bush I in 88', and Bush II in 00' and 04' all got more raw total votes than Donald Trump did. That's amazing when you think about it.

From 1968->2016 in California:

• Republicans net gained just over 1 million votes.
• Democrats net gained 5.5 million votes.

That's unreal.


Now let's look at Pennsylvania from 1968->2016:

• Republicans net gained 880k votes.
• Democrats net gained 670k votes.


Hmmm I'm not seeing it add up. Donald Trump (as the statistics showed in my first paragraph) was the worst Republican candidate in American history to compete in California. He simultaneously riled up white liberals and minorities while depressing turnout among California Republicans (the senate runoff that was Dem vs. Dem didn't help either). In some instances Romney voters broke for Clinton over Trump (see Orange County). Mitt Romney received over 360k more votes than Trump did in the state even though he got 2 million less votes nationally than Donald Trump did.

So unless the GOP goes full force with Trumpian style conservatism in the long run (and they won't/can't/haven't for reasons I can go into) then I don't think the math is there for the GOP to eventually get less votes in California than in Pennsylvania.

[SingingAnalyst]

I voted 2032, though it may be further in the future. I suspect Republicans are fleeing CA in large numbers (for the interior West and TX), just as earlier generations of Republicans fled NY and NJ for the Sunbelt. Democrats may be a bit less mobile on the whole than Republicans, but still I suspect many Dems will flee (and have already fled) the hinterlands of OH and PA for the more hospitable climes of NYC and San Francisco. These trends would tend to make the prediction come true.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

A Democrat would have to get something like 80% of the vote in Cali for the GOP candidate to win fewer votes there than in PA... so unless CA dramatically starts losing population, this will never happen.

[Technocracy Timmy]

A Democrat would have to get something like 80% of the vote in Cali for the GOP candidate to win fewer votes there than in PA... so unless CA dramatically starts losing population, this will never happen.

Also, I'm not sure CA would even maintain its 2016 margin for a Bernie-flavored Dem nominee.  

They probably would initially for 2-3 cycles or so but overtime if the GOP recalculated appropriately then the 25-30 point margins will come down to about 15 points instead. That's my tentative prediction.

[Technocracy Timmy]

A Democrat would have to get something like 80% of the vote in Cali for the GOP candidate to win fewer votes there than in PA... so unless CA dramatically starts losing population, this will never happen.

Also, I'm not sure CA would even maintain its 2016 margin for a Bernie-flavored Dem nominee.  

They probably would initially for 2-3 cycles or so but overtime if the GOP recalculated appropriately then the 25-30 point margins will come down to about 15 points instead. That's my tentative prediction.

I can't see a ticket like Bullock/Brown or Bullock/Evans (if she wins) getting over 60% in CA against anyone other than Trump.  Someone like Manchin or JBE would probably only win CA by 7-12, but doubt the Dems would nominate anyone that socially conservative in the first place.  Maybe in 2028 if they have been completely shut out?

Going back to the topic at hand, a tech collapse worse than 2000 combined with a Dust Bowl like situation in L.A. where it simply doesn't rain for multiple years could cost CA about half its EVs over 15 years or so and would make the remaining residents swing overwhelmingly Democratic.  That's the kind of scenario you would need for fewer Republican votes than in PA.  I did a timeline like this once where CA only had about 30 EV left, but it was set in the 2090's.

Manchin and JBE aren't Bernie flavored Dems and I don't see Bullock winning the nom.

Now say a Biden or Sherrod Brown vs. Pence matchup in 2020 could certainly narrow the margin in California since Pence wouldn't alienate minorities to the extent Trump did and the 360,000 drop off in GOP votes in the state from 2012-2016 could return home largely to Pence.

I'd say if we were to have a Bernie flavored Democratic President realigning the country then they could in their first eleciton and reelection carry California by 30-35 points (cuz the country would vote at least 10 points nationally for him/her). When their VP runs after 8 years (depending on if the GOP nominates somebody more moderate by then) then the margin in California will start to narrow as upscale whites and upscale mirnoties in the state shift their allegiance to the GOP as a result of the higher taxes from the realigning Preisdent's term in office.

[Technocracy Timmy]

A Democrat would have to get something like 80% of the vote in Cali for the GOP candidate to win fewer votes there than in PA... so unless CA dramatically starts losing population, this will never happen.

Also, I'm not sure CA would even maintain its 2016 margin for a Bernie-flavored Dem nominee.  

They probably would initially for 2-3 cycles or so but overtime if the GOP recalculated appropriately then the 25-30 point margins will come down to about 15 points instead. That's my tentative prediction.

I can't see a ticket like Bullock/Brown or Bullock/Evans (if she wins) getting over 60% in CA against anyone other than Trump.  Someone like Manchin or JBE would probably only win CA by 7-12, but doubt the Dems would nominate anyone that socially conservative in the first place.  Maybe in 2028 if they have been completely shut out?

Going back to the topic at hand, a tech collapse worse than 2000 combined with a Dust Bowl like situation in L.A. where it simply doesn't rain for multiple years could cost CA about half its EVs over 15 years or so and would make the remaining residents swing overwhelmingly Democratic.  That's the kind of scenario you would need for fewer Republican votes than in PA.  I did a timeline like this once where CA only had about 30 EV left, but it was set in the 2090's.

Manchin and JBE aren't Bernie flavored Dems and I don't see Bullock winning the nom.

Now say a Biden or Sherrod Brown vs. Pence matchup in 2020 could certainly narrow the margin in California since Pence wouldn't alienate minorities to the extent Trump did and the 360,000 drop off in GOP votes in the state from 2012-2016 could return home largely to Pence.

I'd say if we were to have a Bernie flavored Democratic President realigning the country then they could in their first eleciton and reelection carry California by 30-35 points (cuz the country would vote at least 10 points nationally for him/her). When their VP runs after 8 years (depending on if the GOP nominates somebody more moderate by then) then the margin in California will start to narrow as upscale whites and upscale mirnoties in the state shift their allegiance to the GOP as a result of the higher taxes from the realigning Preisdent's term in office.

I think you are seriously underestimating how much the Bernie wing will have to run a fusion campaign with the Manchins and JBEs of the party to win, in the primary (particularly if the Bernie-flavored candidate isn't black) or in the general. You would need a religious left angle to get the rural numbers up enough and the candidate would probably have to tell off the Tom Steyers of the party.

For the primary you don't need to win rural areas in significant numbers; I agree with you on the general election though. Be Bernie Sanders with name recogntion and have Democratic Party infrastructure in place and you're good to go to win a primary battle.

That's why I don't see a Berniecrat becoming President unless the country shifts enough to where there's a clear mandate (a realignment) pushing them into the White House.

[Technocracy Timmy]

A Democrat would have to get something like 80% of the vote in Cali for the GOP candidate to win fewer votes there than in PA... so unless CA dramatically starts losing population, this will never happen.

Also, I'm not sure CA would even maintain its 2016 margin for a Bernie-flavored Dem nominee.  

They probably would initially for 2-3 cycles or so but overtime if the GOP recalculated appropriately then the 25-30 point margins will come down to about 15 points instead. That's my tentative prediction.

I can't see a ticket like Bullock/Brown or Bullock/Evans (if she wins) getting over 60% in CA against anyone other than Trump.  Someone like Manchin or JBE would probably only win CA by 7-12, but doubt the Dems would nominate anyone that socially conservative in the first place.  Maybe in 2028 if they have been completely shut out?

Going back to the topic at hand, a tech collapse worse than 2000 combined with a Dust Bowl like situation in L.A. where it simply doesn't rain for multiple years could cost CA about half its EVs over 15 years or so and would make the remaining residents swing overwhelmingly Democratic.  That's the kind of scenario you would need for fewer Republican votes than in PA.  I did a timeline like this once where CA only had about 30 EV left, but it was set in the 2090's.

Manchin and JBE aren't Bernie flavored Dems and I don't see Bullock winning the nom.

Now say a Biden or Sherrod Brown vs. Pence matchup in 2020 could certainly narrow the margin in California since Pence wouldn't alienate minorities to the extent Trump did and the 360,000 drop off in GOP votes in the state from 2012-2016 could return home largely to Pence.

I'd say if we were to have a Bernie flavored Democratic President realigning the country then they could in their first eleciton and reelection carry California by 30-35 points (cuz the country would vote at least 10 points nationally for him/her). When their VP runs after 8 years (depending on if the GOP nominates somebody more moderate by then) then the margin in California will start to narrow as upscale whites and upscale mirnoties in the state shift their allegiance to the GOP as a result of the higher taxes from the realigning Preisdent's term in office.

I think you are seriously underestimating how much the Bernie wing will have to run a fusion campaign with the Manchins and JBEs of the party to win, in the primary (particularly if the Bernie-flavored candidate isn't black) or in the general. You would need a religious left angle to get the rural numbers up enough and the candidate would probably have to tell off the Tom Steyers of the party.

For the primary you don't need to win rural areas in significant numbers; I agree with you on the general election though. Be Bernie Sanders with name recogntion and have Democratic Party infrastructure in place and you're good to go to win a primary battle.

That's why I don't see a Berniecrat becoming President unless the country shifts enough to where there's a clear mandate (a realignment) pushing them into the White House.

Well, you need to run up the score 2:1 or better in the Plains and Mountain West states and you can't get destroyed 2:1 or 3:1 in all of the Southern states in the primary.  I don't think pure Bernie can win.  I do think 2/3rds Bernie + 1/3rd Truman could win.

A pure Bernie style candidate should've done worse in 2016 than Bill Bradley did in 2000. The Party has changed quite a bit. I think that Sanders powerful performance with young voters coupled with somebody who's actually a Democrat, has some name recognition to start with, and has a more pragmatic streak in their approach ala Sherrod Brown (or even Joe Biden based on what the guy's been saying recently in his speeches) could win the primary.

You also don't need 50%. Sanders got 43% and in a crowded primary that's more than enough.

[Spark]

2036