|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 09, 2020, 07:11:32 am
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

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

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: Virginiá)
  Future Realignment Possibilities?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 Print
Author Topic: Future Realignment Possibilities?  (Read 6044 times)
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,566


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -0.10

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: August 23, 2017, 10:09:19 pm »


except the "Root" needs to be a governor  , as they are the ones who can successfully govern the country while changing it as well.

Lincoln is considered a root president and he was not a governor

Also...Root presidency are generally brought into power by the younger ascending generation who totally reject that status quo. Bernie polls nearly 70% of the under 30 vote in the latest PPP poll. Further proof that what young voters want is an extreme leftist


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please go through the WaPo or NYT's archives. Reagan was literally considered a far right-wing extremist who would bring back Jim Crow and cause a Nuclear Holocaust. Of course everyone has forgotten that since the GOP totally reinvented his legacy and image. Jimmy Carter's campaign manager thought that Reagan would be ''the easiest one to beat.''



Except Lincoln was a moderate for his day , and after Grants first term the realignment fell apart and neither party was really able to get what they wanted until McKinley became president.


Also Reagan was still clearly less right wing than the pre FDR GOP ,while Sanders is clearly to the left of any president we ever have had . The fact is if you go to far to the left or right ,you will fail .




Americans have had it with Republicans and centrist Democrats. Macron in France has an approval rating on par with Trump. He was elected with the lowest turnout in modern French history. Same thing that's happening in America (the 2014 midterms had the lowest measured turnout in US history!). People dont want any more right wing policies but at the same time, they dont want anymore phoney ass Centrist DLC types who drop to their knees for corporate cash while forcing a wedding cake baker in Ohio to bake a cake for a gay couple.

Every realignment in US History, the person who seems most ''extremist'' there ends up winning.

Except those presidents also have to be be pretty good ones ,and Bernie sanders would be a disaster for the country .


Again Lincoln was a moderate , FDR ran as a moderate. If you ask me the real realignment was not in 1980 but by the fact that Reagan presidency was successful.
Logged
Joe "epiphany" Biden
Cashew
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,113
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: August 24, 2017, 12:15:58 am »
« Edited: August 24, 2017, 01:17:20 am by Cashew »


except the "Root" needs to be a governor  , as they are the ones who can successfully govern the country while changing it as well.

Lincoln is considered a root president and he was not a governor

Also...Root presidency are generally brought into power by the younger ascending generation who totally reject that status quo. Bernie polls nearly 70% of the under 30 vote in the latest PPP poll. Further proof that what young voters want is an extreme leftist


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please go through the WaPo or NYT's archives. Reagan was literally considered a far right-wing extremist who would bring back Jim Crow and cause a Nuclear Holocaust. Of course everyone has forgotten that since the GOP totally reinvented his legacy and image. Jimmy Carter's campaign manager thought that Reagan would be ''the easiest one to beat.''



Except Lincoln was a moderate for his day , and after Grants first term the realignment fell apart and neither party was really able to get what they wanted until McKinley became president.


Also Reagan was still clearly less right wing than the pre FDR GOP ,while Sanders is clearly to the left of any president we ever have had . The fact is if you go to far to the left or right ,you will fail .




Okay, but let's not pretend that that alignment just fizzled out naturally. It was only through terrorism that Democrats managed to claw their way back to competitiveness, otherwise allowing free elections would have caused states like Louisiana  and South Carolina to have remained republican leaning.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,566


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -0.10

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: August 24, 2017, 12:22:24 am »


except the "Root" needs to be a governor  , as they are the ones who can successfully govern the country while changing it as well.

Lincoln is considered a root president and he was not a governor

Also...Root presidency are generally brought into power by the younger ascending generation who totally reject that status quo. Bernie polls nearly 70% of the under 30 vote in the latest PPP poll. Further proof that what young voters want is an extreme leftist


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please go through the WaPo or NYT's archives. Reagan was literally considered a far right-wing extremist who would bring back Jim Crow and cause a Nuclear Holocaust. Of course everyone has forgotten that since the GOP totally reinvented his legacy and image. Jimmy Carter's campaign manager thought that Reagan would be ''the easiest one to beat.''



Except Lincoln was a moderate for his day , and after Grants first term the realignment fell apart and neither party was really able to get what they wanted until McKinley became president.


Also Reagan was still clearly less right wing than the pre FDR GOP ,while Sanders is clearly to the left of any president we ever have had . The fact is if you go to far to the left or right ,you will fail .




Okay, but let's not pretend that that alignment just fizzled out naturally. It was only through terrorism that Democrats managed to claw their way back to competitiveness, otherwise allowing free elections would have caused states like Louisiana and South Carolina would have remain republican leaning.


Grant also screwed it up with his corrupt 2nd term , and without that Hayes easily wins 1876 thus compromise of 1877 never happens.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,946
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: August 24, 2017, 04:31:05 pm »

-snippity snip-
Sanders supporters tended to be more liberal on social issues, not economic ones. So were Johnson supporters, who often polled in double digits among millenials.
Sanders managed to acquire a reputation as honest and full of integrity. Being as it is not true, I can't imagine it lasting long.

For your first point, can you provide a source? The article you posted doesn't have this point as a central point, do you mind copying the text for me? It doesn't necessarily make sense, considering how Sanders won by large margins in the more fiscally egalitarian, socially conservative states like West Virginia and Oklahoma. He also came really close, outperforming his national margin significantly, in Kentucky and Missouri. It was Clinton who swept fiscally conservative, socially liberal states such as New Jersey. Of course, both Sanders and Clinton swept states that are fiscally and socially left-wing; Sanders winning the Oregon and Washington, Clinton winning Maryland.

Also, about the Johnson voters, there is another point to be brought up too (that I forgot about at first), and that is the fact that even millennial conservatives tend to be less socially conservative than the Republicans. It is more likely than not that Johnson pulled more voters from these two main groups; millennial conservatives, who wanted the fiscal conservatism yet not the social conservatism, and the "DUDE WEED LMAO" crowd, which was the overlap between Johnson and Sanders.

As for your second point, again, can you provide any evidence? Sanders built his reputation of honesty and integrity because he refuses to take big-money donations, unlike Clinton who does speeches for Goldman Sachs. He made campaign finance reform a central point of his campaign. If he continues to do this, how exactly will this reputation decline? Please, lay it out for me. Sanders didn't get his honest reputation from a shooting star, he built it from scratch. He has held elected office for much longer than Clinton, so it's not because of political career length.

>b-b-but Clinton was ferociously attacked by the GOP

Yeah, so? This is politics, put up or shut up. You have to be able to defend yourself and your reputation from such attacks. If you can't, you're an incompetent politician. This didn't happen to Barack Obama, look at the approval ratings at the end of his presidency. He also had the added disadvantage of being a black guy with the middle name Hussein.

Oregon is, from my understand, an oddball state. It likes Democrats who are libertarianish who appeal to farmers and the working class.
Logged
Succdem
TheLeftwardTide
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,062
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.60, S: -1.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: August 25, 2017, 01:34:57 pm »
« Edited: August 25, 2017, 01:46:12 pm by Angry Socdem »

Anyway, here's my realignment map if a left-populist Democratic party becomes the majority party, by the early 2030s:

The Democratic coalition is powerful but a skilled Republican can win in the Lean D states.

If a popular Orange County Republican runs in 2032 versus an uninspiring Democrat:

Logged
America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗
TexArkana
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,432
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: August 25, 2017, 02:37:46 pm »

Anyway, here's my realignment map if a left-populist Democratic party becomes the majority party, by the early 2030s:

The Democratic coalition is powerful but a skilled Republican can win in the Lean D states.

If a popular Orange County Republican runs in 2032 versus an uninspiring Democrat:




I'd personally love to see West Virginia go D even as the Democratic nominee loses handily.
Logged
Succdem
TheLeftwardTide
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,062
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.60, S: -1.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: August 25, 2017, 03:40:13 pm »
« Edited: August 26, 2017, 06:36:23 pm by Angry Socdem »

I'd personally love to see West Virginia go D even as the Democratic nominee loses handily.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1988 (edit - removed mobile link)

I thought that West Virginia would hate this type of fiscally conservative, socially moderate-to-liberal, wealthy, coastal Republican. By the late 2020s, I think the wishes of coal coming back will begin to fade, yet the old fiscally left-wing spirit will remain. The current coal-baiting strategy is, like the conservative economy itself, unsustainable.
Logged
PoliticalShelter
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 398
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: August 25, 2017, 03:53:42 pm »

Anyway, here's my realignment map if a left-populist Democratic party becomes the majority party, by the early 2030s:

The Democratic coalition is powerful but a skilled Republican can win in the Lean D states.

If a popular Orange County Republican runs in 2032 versus an uninspiring Democrat:



Your maps look good, but they do strike me as bit too much rooted in the 20th century. For example I don't think Washington would be more democratic than California at this point with the dramatic changes that have occurred in the state.
Also I doubt that a state like Mississippi would be more republican than states like Arkansa and Tennessee. The days of the whiter southern states being relatively unaffected by racial polarisation are over.
Logged
Succdem
TheLeftwardTide
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,062
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.60, S: -1.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: August 25, 2017, 04:37:19 pm »
« Edited: August 25, 2017, 04:53:45 pm by Angry Socdem »

Your maps look good, but they do strike me as bit too much rooted in the 20th century. For example I don't think Washington would be more democratic than California at this point with the dramatic changes that have occurred in the state.
Also I doubt that a state like Mississippi would be more republican than states like Arkansa and Tennessee. The days of the whiter southern states being relatively unaffected by racial polarisation are over.

I based a large part of my predictions off of where each state lies on the political spectrum. Washington is definitely still to the left of California on economic issues, and in such a situation I would expect the GOP to make inroads into California. The same situation applies for Louisiana and Arkansas - I think they would respond well to left-wing populism, but Mississippi and Alabama would not.

You are right in saying that this map is like that of the 20th century, however. I think that may be what happens; a sort of political redux into the New Deal era.

Also, Louisiana has the 2nd highest black population, after Mississippi.
Logged
PoliticalShelter
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 398
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: August 25, 2017, 05:48:50 pm »
« Edited: August 25, 2017, 05:51:04 pm by PoliticalShelter »

Your maps look good, but they do strike me as bit too much rooted in the 20th century. For example I don't think Washington would be more democratic than California at this point with the dramatic changes that have occurred in the state.
Also I doubt that a state like Mississippi would be more republican than states like Arkansa and Tennessee. The days of the whiter southern states being relatively unaffected by racial polarisation are over.

I based a large part of my predictions off of where each state lies on the political spectrum. Washington is definitely still to the left of California on economic issues, and in such a situation I would expect the GOP to make inroads into California. The same situation applies for Louisiana and Arkansas - I think they would respond well to left-wing populism, but Mississippi and Alabama would not.

You are right in saying that this map is like that of the 20th century, however. I think that may be what happens; a sort of political redux into the New Deal era.

Also, Louisiana has the 2nd highest black population, after Mississippi.

Is it though? Sure the California of 1988 may be more economically right wing than the Washington of today, but the California of 2017 is a very different place. Large numbers of the white suburbanites that voted for Nixon/Reagan have left the state after the Cold War which led to the shrinkage of the defence industry causing them to move over to places like Arizona and Idaho. Meanwhile there has been a huge influx of Hispanics into the state and which has definitely pushed the state to left economically.

Washington meanwhile, is a state that doesn't even have a state income tax and is not exactly a social democratic paradise.
Overall I would personally switch California and Washington on that map.

As for Mississippi and Alabama, I assumed that the whites in those states would somewhat less hostile to the democrats in this alignment, just enough to make them competitive, after all you don't need to flip that many whites in the Deep South for the democrats to win those states.
Logged
McGovernForPrez
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,074


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: August 25, 2017, 10:25:21 pm »


except the "Root" needs to be a governor  , as they are the ones who can successfully govern the country while changing it as well.

Lincoln is considered a root president and he was not a governor

Also...Root presidency are generally brought into power by the younger ascending generation who totally reject that status quo. Bernie polls nearly 70% of the under 30 vote in the latest PPP poll. Further proof that what young voters want is an extreme leftist


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please go through the WaPo or NYT's archives. Reagan was literally considered a far right-wing extremist who would bring back Jim Crow and cause a Nuclear Holocaust. Of course everyone has forgotten that since the GOP totally reinvented his legacy and image. Jimmy Carter's campaign manager thought that Reagan would be ''the easiest one to beat.''



Except Lincoln was a moderate for his day , and after Grants first term the realignment fell apart and neither party was really able to get what they wanted until McKinley became president.


Also Reagan was still clearly less right wing than the pre FDR GOP ,while Sanders is clearly to the left of any president we ever have had . The fact is if you go to far to the left or right ,you will fail .




Americans have had it with Republicans and centrist Democrats. Macron in France has an approval rating on par with Trump. He was elected with the lowest turnout in modern French history. Same thing that's happening in America (the 2014 midterms had the lowest measured turnout in US history!). People dont want any more right wing policies but at the same time, they dont want anymore phoney ass Centrist DLC types who drop to their knees for corporate cash while forcing a wedding cake baker in Ohio to bake a cake for a gay couple.

Every realignment in US History, the person who seems most ''extremist'' there ends up winning.

Except those presidents also have to be be pretty good ones ,and Bernie sanders would be a disaster for the country .


Again Lincoln was a moderate , FDR ran as a moderate. If you ask me the real realignment was not in 1980 but by the fact that Reagan presidency was successful.
You really have no basis to say whether or not Bernie would be a successful president. You may seem to think he'd be a failure but only time can tell on that front.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,946
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: August 26, 2017, 03:02:32 am »

Anyway, here's my realignment map if a left-populist Democratic party becomes the majority party, by the early 2030s:

The Democratic coalition is powerful but a skilled Republican can win in the Lean D states.

If a popular Orange County Republican runs in 2032 versus an uninspiring Democrat:



Your maps look good, but they do strike me as bit too much rooted in the 20th century. For example I don't think Washington would be more democratic than California at this point with the dramatic changes that have occurred in the state.
Also I doubt that a state like Mississippi would be more republican than states like Arkansa and Tennessee. The days of the whiter southern states being relatively unaffected by racial polarisation are over.

In what world are we vulnerable to populism? We are a clash of Mississippian minorities, upper middle class people, and Deep South/Western/Midwestern/Northern culture.
Logged
Succdem
TheLeftwardTide
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,062
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.60, S: -1.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: August 26, 2017, 06:28:35 pm »
« Edited: August 26, 2017, 08:24:55 pm by Angry Socdem »

We are a clash of Mississippian minorities
Arkansas is 72.9% white, well above the national average, and is therefore considered to be one of the whitest Southern states.

You mean how Arkansas has consistently ranked in the bottom 10 states in terms of GDP per capita for the past decade?

Deep South/Western/Midwestern/Northern culture.
I don't understand your implication here.

I'm not going to try to pretend to know more about your state than you do, but based off of statistical evidence, it seems that you have to try again at your argument.

Also, it's quite hilarious to see you refer to the affection for populism as a vulnerability.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: August 26, 2017, 09:03:45 pm »

We are a clash of Mississippian minorities
Arkansas is 72.9% white, well above the national average, and is therefore considered to be one of the whitest Southern states.

You mean how Arkansas has consistently ranked in the bottom 10 states in terms of GDP per capita for the past decade?

Deep South/Western/Midwestern/Northern culture.
I don't understand your implication here.

I'm not going to try to pretend to know more about your state than you do, but based off of statistical evidence, it seems that you have to try again at your argument.

Also, it's quite hilarious to see you refer to the affection for populism as a vulnerability.

A vulnerability to populism is a vulnerability, whether you think there's a great reasoning for that willingness or not.
Logged
AN63093
63093
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 886


Political Matrix
E: 0.06, S: 2.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: August 26, 2017, 11:05:20 pm »
« Edited: August 26, 2017, 11:22:27 pm by AN63093 »

Side-stepping the ongoing conversation in this thread regarding jalawest's map (suffice to say, that map is one of the more.. shall we say... goofier things I've seen on this forum), here is what I've posted before on my two most likely realignment scenarios:

1.  TT's generational theory is correct and a realignment occurs with a catalyst being a major economic crisis that unravels the Reagan neo-liberal economic order and results in a system with low polarization and differences between the parties being mostly economic in nature.  Whites are mostly GOP, minorities D, but both parties make significant in-roads with all racial/ethnic demographics.  In this system, I think there would be a significant number of swing states, landslides would be relatively common and both parties would be competitive in nearly every state.  NY, TX, and FL are the hardest fought states.  PA and IL are close too, but are losing EVs with each passing census.  Toss-ups are indicated; and about 6-10 more states would be swing states.



2.  TT's generational theory may be correct, and an economic crisis may occur, but even so, all of this is overshadowed by increased and extremely intense polarization rooted in racial stratification of the parties, leading to a South Africa type system.  The GOP is essentially the White party, the Dems are the "others."  Neither party platform is significantly different on economic issues, and all debates eventually lead back to identity politics.  After a few decades the country is at serious risk of Balkanizing and racial/ethnic strife and violence are relatively common.  Elections are almost entirely just a turnout battle in the 4 toss-ups between whites and minorities.  There are no swing states except the lighter shaded ones in 50-50 years.



PV percentages are not literal... lighter shading just indicates closer states.


Though most people would consider the second scenario "bleaker," I think this is actually the more likely scenario.

As I wrote about above, if some of Timmy's predictions about generational theory occur, my first scenario might be one of the likely outcomes.

I also think what RINO Tom wrote a couple pages back is plausible.  However, like in Timmy's theories, I think some event would have to occur first that de-polarizes the current climate.  In the case that happens, then I also think we would settle into my "scenario 1," and that map above would be a likely outcome.
Logged
AN63093
63093
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 886


Political Matrix
E: 0.06, S: 2.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: August 27, 2017, 03:35:41 am »
« Edited: August 27, 2017, 03:43:46 am by AN63093 »

First off, I'm not advocating for either of these scenarios.  They are offered as possible scenarios based on observation of current trends.  So keep that in mind in your replies PNM.

Second, in the case of NJ, WA, and CA, I'm not sure why you're mentioning these, because you'll notice that in my map that they are still all D.  I agree with you that the white population there is a) too liberal, and b) those states are also too diverse.  Even in a world of extreme racial stratification, those states still probably stay D and they are colored in that way on my map.  

Third, these maps are post-realignment maps.  So we're talking about 20-30 year trends here.  These are not the maps for 2020.  So this is assuming polarization not only continues, but that racial stratification among parties exponentially increases as well, over decades of time.  More important than how Gen X is voting (btw, I'm not sure that I buy that Gen X whites are substantially more Dem than Boomer whites, I'd like to see a cite for that), is how the post-Millennials (Gen Z?) vote, and the generation after Z.  This scenario is also assuming that a major portion of that generation's counter-culture (at least among whites), will be the Alt Right (or some future version of it) and that the general climate will be one of ethnic strife, a very Balkanized typed society where people identify most primarily with race and ethnic group.  That may be difficult for you to envision now, but this scenario is assuming another 20-30 years of the same type of polarization we have today; and actually, increased levels of hyper polarization.

Fourth, I grew up in NY and spent many of my summers in New England (our family actually used to have a house in Newport RI).  I am very familiar with this area, and also the Bay Area and So Cal, as I go out there all the time (have family in SF and LA).  States like CT, VT, and RI are not culturally similar to the Bay Area.  Conflating these two regions reflects a lack of perspective of the different demographics.  The unionized longshoreman working in Providence and drinking Narragansett at a dive after work while swapping racist jokes with his buddies and discussing the Sox, is voting Dem for a very different reason than the Google software engineer living in Mountain View who has a STEM PhD and is trying to buy one of those crappy 70s ranch homes in Redwood City that are now going for $1-2mil+.  

Take a look at the trend and swing maps.  The Bay Area trended and swung hard D, every county in the Bay Area MSA, and also the LA MSA.  Now look at New England.  Every county but one swung AND trended R in VT, and in ME, and in CT (only place that swung D was Fairfield Cty near NYC), and in RI.  The only place in New England that swung D was Boston, and you'll notice that accordingly, MA is not R on my map (this is the closest place in the region that 'votes like' the Bay Area).  Are these states voting R in 2020?  Nope.  In 2024?  Nope.  In 30 years based on decades of racial identity politics played both parties?  Well, now that might be different.

Finally, you're not grasping the sophistication of which I'm analyzing this.  For example, you discuss how there is a limit to how much you get from the "dog whistle."  But notice I didn't say anything about dog whistles.  This scenario is envisioning a world in which whites have started block voting in certain areas such that things like dog whistles aren't even necessary anymore.  In other words, you are assuming current tactics and political culture are static and unchanging.  My scenarios are extrapolating how culture would change after decades of trends and how the entire climate would be completely different.
Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,000
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: August 27, 2017, 09:35:17 am »
« Edited: August 27, 2017, 09:57:39 am by MT Treasurer »

I mean, it will obviously be this because 2016 was a one-time thing, a "populist" like Sanders (who wins the Democratic nomination without any trouble whatsoever) could clearly do well in WV/KY/MO/AR/etc. (all of which are populist Democratic states at heart), VA and CO will "come home" for the GOP once Trump is gone, Schumer's Better Deal slogan, etc.



In all seriousness, though: I expect to see something like this by 2030...




This map isn't necessarily the result of a "complex realignment" but rather remarkably little change.

And in 2040:

Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: August 27, 2017, 10:01:48 am »

"Remarkably little change" doesn't last 50 years.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: August 27, 2017, 10:06:07 am »

I mean, it will obviously be this because 2016 was a one-time thing, a "populist" like Sanders (who wins the Democratic nomination without any trouble whatsoever) could clearly do well in WV/KY/MO/AR/etc. (all of which are populist Democratic states at heart), VA and CO will "come home" for the GOP once Trump is gone, Schumer's Better Deal slogan, etc.



In all seriousness, though: I expect to see something like this by 2030...




This map isn't necessarily the result of a "complex realignment" but rather remarkably little change.

And in 2040:



Noting that the bolded is sarcastic, I'm seriously amused at the type of people you think make up the Democratic primary electorate.
Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,000
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: August 27, 2017, 10:26:45 am »

Of course a plausible scenario is that there won't really be ONE direction the Republican Party will choose to go. You might see a Kid Rock or Paul LePage winning a Republican primary in 2024 and then 4 years later someone like Tim Scott or Ted Cruz. And then a Rick Scott. A lot really depends on the national environment, economic conditions, race relations, etc. In any case, uniting the different factions that make up the party could prove to be very difficult. The Democrats are much more flexible in this regard, and I could easily see a celebrity (just as an example) uniting the establishment and more progressive factions.
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,396
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.63, S: -6.13

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: August 27, 2017, 10:29:45 am »



Obviously, muh trend R whites means that white voters of all ages in every part of the country will vote like they do in Mississippi (which will be Likely D because muh demographics.) The trends that happened in the 2016 election will obviously continue foreverz, and Kansas is a Toss-Up because muh educateds (doesn't apply in the PNW or NE) and the Sunbelt will be a permanent Democratic stronghold, except NV and NM, since they trended R in 2016, so obviously Republicans will always be competitive in those states, not to mention that NV polls say that it will be close, and we should always trust NV polls.
Logged
GlobeSoc
The walrus
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,690


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: August 27, 2017, 10:35:39 am »



Obviously, muh trend R whites means that white voters of all ages in every part of the country will vote like they do in Mississippi (which will be Likely D because muh demographics.) The trends that happened in the 2016 election will obviously continue foreverz, and Kansas is a Toss-Up because muh educateds (doesn't apply in the PNW or NE) and the Sunbelt will be a permanent Democratic stronghold, except NV and NM, since they trended R in 2016, so obviously Republicans will always be competitive in those states, not to mention that NV polls say that it will be close, and we should always trust NV polls.

thank you for your wisdom
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,426


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: August 27, 2017, 10:54:04 am »
« Edited: August 29, 2017, 07:16:37 pm by Virginia »

Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,000
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: August 27, 2017, 01:48:08 pm »



Iowa is one of the most Republican states in the country while New Mexico is one of the most Democratic states.

Assuming this isn't a joke, I'd love to hear the reasoning behind this map/scenario as I find it quite interesting, especially NM being one of the most Democratic states in the country, NH being solidly R (while ME is a Tossup) and AR being a Tossup.
Logged
PoliticalShelter
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 398
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: August 27, 2017, 02:35:08 pm »



Iowa is one of the most Republican states in the country while New Mexico is one of the most Democratic states.

I'm slightly curious as to why Kentucky and Tennessee vote so differently in this map. Both states have voted with each other since 1956 (having similar margins in almost every election) and I'm interested as to what makes those two states diverge from each other.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines