Party Coalitions if this was the map

[OSR stands with Israel]

What would be the party coalitions if this was the map

[Dr. MB]

From the looks of it,

Republicans – Latinos, Mormons, suburbanites, traditional Western GOP voters (Nebraska, Wyoming), and evangelical Christians.
Democrats – northern whites, blacks, Asians, poor Southern whites, blue collar workers, and northeastern liberals

I'd guess that the swing states would be Missouri, Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois, Ohio, Iowa, the Dakotas, Arkansas, Colorado, and Maryland. Maybe a few more.

Also, I think this GOP is economically center-right and more supportive of immigration, while still being socially conservative on some other issues, but the Democrats are more progressive/economic populists.

[OSR stands with Israel]

From the looks of it,

Republicans – Latinos, Mormons, suburbanites, traditional Western GOP voters (Nebraska, Wyoming), and evangelical Christians.
Democrats – northern whites, blacks, Asians, poor Southern whites, blue collar workers, and northeastern liberals

I'd guess that the swing states would be Missouri, Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois, Ohio, Iowa, the Dakotas, Arkansas, Colorado, and Maryland. Maybe a few more.

Also, I think this GOP is economically center-right and more supportive of immigration, while still being socially conservative on some other issues, but the Democrats are more progressive/economic populists.

Would you say this could be the map of the GOP staying true to the Reagan Coalition (So they remain a pro-immigration party , and a suburban party ) while Democrats stay true to the New Deal Coalition (Except many North Eastern Republicans still leave the party, and African Americans remain as Democratic as they are today).


So in this world would you say these would be the presidents

1980-1988 : Ronald Reagan
1988-1996: George HW Bush
1996-2004: Mario Cuomo
2004-2008: Sam Nunn
2008-2016: Jeb Bush
2016-Present: Barack Obama (Who in this Timeline would be a New Deal Dem instead of a Neo Liberal Dem)

[Dr. MB]

From the looks of it,

Republicans – Latinos, Mormons, suburbanites, traditional Western GOP voters (Nebraska, Wyoming), and evangelical Christians.
Democrats – northern whites, blacks, Asians, poor Southern whites, blue collar workers, and northeastern liberals

I'd guess that the swing states would be Missouri, Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois, Ohio, Iowa, the Dakotas, Arkansas, Colorado, and Maryland. Maybe a few more.

Also, I think this GOP is economically center-right and more supportive of immigration, while still being socially conservative on some other issues, but the Democrats are more progressive/economic populists.

Would you say this could be the map of the GOP staying true to the Reagan Coalition (So they remain a pro-immigration party , and a suburban party ) while Democrats stay true to the New Deal Coalition (Except many North Eastern Republicans still leave the party, and African Americans remain as Democratic as they are today).

Yes, that's one likely cause.

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

From the looks of it,

Republicans – Latinos, Mormons, suburbanites, traditional Western GOP voters (Nebraska, Wyoming), and evangelical Christians.
Democrats – northern whites, blacks, Asians, poor Southern whites, blue collar workers, and northeastern liberals

I'd guess that the swing states would be Missouri, Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois, Ohio, Iowa, the Dakotas, Arkansas, Colorado, and Maryland. Maybe a few more.

Also, I think this GOP is economically center-right and more supportive of immigration, while still being socially conservative on some other issues, but the Democrats are more progressive/economic populists.

California would be less Republican than Texas or Florida in this scenario.

[Dr. MB]

From the looks of it,

Republicans – Latinos, Mormons, suburbanites, traditional Western GOP voters (Nebraska, Wyoming), and evangelical Christians.
Democrats – northern whites, blacks, Asians, poor Southern whites, blue collar workers, and northeastern liberals

I'd guess that the swing states would be Missouri, Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois, Ohio, Iowa, the Dakotas, Arkansas, Colorado, and Maryland. Maybe a few more.

Also, I think this GOP is economically center-right and more supportive of immigration, while still being socially conservative on some other issues, but the Democrats are more progressive/economic populists.

California would be less Republican than Texas or Florida in this scenario.

Yeah, I should've made a distinction between lower-class and upper-class suburban Asians.

[OSR stands with Israel]

From the looks of it,

Republicans – Latinos, Mormons, suburbanites, traditional Western GOP voters (Nebraska, Wyoming), and evangelical Christians.
Democrats – northern whites, blacks, Asians, poor Southern whites, blue collar workers, and northeastern liberals

I'd guess that the swing states would be Missouri, Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois, Ohio, Iowa, the Dakotas, Arkansas, Colorado, and Maryland. Maybe a few more.

Also, I think this GOP is economically center-right and more supportive of immigration, while still being socially conservative on some other issues, but the Democrats are more progressive/economic populists.

California would be less Republican than Texas or Florida in this scenario.

I would say Texas would probably be the most solid Republican state in this scenario as Republicans coalition of suburban voters, Latinos, Evangelical Christians and Western GOP Voters(I think many counties in Texas could count towards this category) would basically mean they sweep all the major demographics in Texas .


California probably is a 55-45 GOP state in this scenario, while Texas is probably 65-35 .

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Could you do map of this with state margins? This looks really cool and I'd like to make a county map for this but it's difficult without seeing the statewide margins.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Could you do map of this with state margins? This looks really cool and I'd like to make a county map for this but it's difficult without seeing the statewide margins.

I would say something like this:

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

South Carolina has a lot of high end+Evangelical suburbs. I also imagine that SC-01 would be more Republican (it has ebbed in recent years), as would the Eastern half of SC-07, while SC-04 being rather wealthy and evangelical would be one of the most Republican districts in the nation.

SC-05 would be democratic (House of Cards ftw) and SC-03 might be a swing district but I think the state would at least tilt Republican, especially by now.


NC is far more blue collar than SC is. The Republicans have long been dependent on lower end white voters to prop them up. Remember in 2004, Burr beat Bowles by tying Bowles to Clinton and Clinton to NAFTA. And even the establishment Republicans here are typically hawkish on the border, with the exception of the types coming out of the legislature drenched in Koch brothers money like Tillis.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Could you do map of this with state margins? This looks really cool and I'd like to make a county map for this but it's difficult without seeing the statewide margins.

I would say something like this:

I have one more question... How well do Democrats do in rural white areas in this scenario?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Could you do map of this with state margins? This looks really cool and I'd like to make a county map for this but it's difficult without seeing the statewide margins.

I would say something like this:

I have one more question... How well do Democrats do in rural white areas in this scenario?

Well in New England they do really well, in Montana and the Dakotas they do pretty well .They also do pretty well in Alaska .

In the Deep South, I would say they get around 35% of Rural White Vote.

For the rest I would say about how they did in 2000(maybe a point or two better).

[OSR stands with Israel]

Bump

[UlmerFudd]

From the looks of it,

Republicans – Latinos, Mormons, suburbanites, traditional Western GOP voters (Nebraska, Wyoming), and evangelical Christians.
Democrats – northern whites, blacks, Asians, poor Southern whites, blue collar workers, and northeastern liberals

I'd guess that the swing states would be Missouri, Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois, Ohio, Iowa, the Dakotas, Arkansas, Colorado, and Maryland. Maybe a few more.

Also, I think this GOP is economically center-right and more supportive of immigration, while still being socially conservative on some other issues, but the Democrats are more progressive/economic populists.

California would be less Republican than Texas or Florida in this scenario.

I would say Texas would probably be the most solid Republican state in this scenario as Republicans coalition of suburban voters, Latinos, Evangelical Christians and Western GOP Voters(I think many counties in Texas could count towards this category) would basically mean they sweep all the major demographics in Texas .


California probably is a 55-45 GOP state in this scenario, while Texas is probably 65-35 .

Why couldn't this be the timeline we live in?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I think the general scenario above is pretty much what would cause this map, but I think SC and GA would be GOP in this scenario due to the number of suburban/exurban well-educated evangelical conservatives in those states.

[Skill and Chance]

From the looks of it,

Republicans – Latinos, Mormons, suburbanites, traditional Western GOP voters (Nebraska, Wyoming), and evangelical Christians.
Democrats – northern whites, blacks, Asians, poor Southern whites, blue collar workers, and northeastern liberals

I'd guess that the swing states would be Missouri, Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois, Ohio, Iowa, the Dakotas, Arkansas, Colorado, and Maryland. Maybe a few more.

Also, I think this GOP is economically center-right and more supportive of immigration, while still being socially conservative on some other issues, but the Democrats are more progressive/economic populists.

Would you say this could be the map of the GOP staying true to the Reagan Coalition (So they remain a pro-immigration party , and a suburban party ) while Democrats stay true to the New Deal Coalition (Except many North Eastern Republicans still leave the party, and African Americans remain as Democratic as they are today).


So in this world would you say these would be the presidents

1980-1988 : Ronald Reagan
1988-1996: George HW Bush
1996-2004: Mario Cuomo
2004-2008: Sam Nunn
2008-2016: Jeb Bush
2016-Present: Barack Obama (Who in this Timeline would be a New Deal Dem instead of a Neo Liberal Dem)

This feels pretty right to me.  The jumping off point needs to be after the Farm Crisis but before 2000 for this to work.  Definitely no Democratic involvement in NAFTA is a prerequisite and undocumented immigration probably needs to be less of an issue than IRL, and Republicans need to continue down Reagan's road and explicitly court Hispanic voters. 

A G.H.W. Bush reelection is one plausible jumping-off point.  Alternatively, a Dukakis win in 1988 could work as well, particularly if he wins by flipping more of the farm states and is a 1-term president.  Then the Republican elected in 1992 does NAFTA and immigration reform without Dem votes?

The odd part of this is that Republicans would need enough of a religious right movement to flip the Upper South and lock down Texas, Utah, and Oklahoma, but not enough to flip the Deep South or all of the Plains states or to turn off California.  IDK how that would work?

I would assume the swing areas are the West Coast, Upper South and Northeast states?