But seriously: will the Democratic Party lose even more "WWC" voters, esp. men?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:13:23 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  But seriously: will the Democratic Party lose even more "WWC" voters, esp. men?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: But seriously: will the Democratic Party lose even more "WWC" voters, esp. men?  (Read 3199 times)
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 25, 2019, 10:33:08 AM »

This is the Big Question, or one of them, at least.

I tend to lean "Yes."
Logged
Some of My Best Friends Are Gay
Enlightened_Centrist 420
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,599


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 25, 2019, 12:21:11 PM »

It's hard to imagine even more bleeding amongst this group after 2016 and 2018, but in a few select areas, such as the Midwest, there's still some more room for Democrats to fall.
Logged
TML
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,404


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 25, 2019, 01:07:29 PM »

This depends on which direction they go.

If they continue to promote corporatism, then the answer to this question is a definite yes.

If they decide to ditch corporatism in favor of economic populism, them the jury is still out on the answer to this question.
Logged
Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,986
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.13, S: -0.87

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 25, 2019, 03:03:11 PM »

Probably not
Logged
here2view
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,683
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.13, S: -1.74

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 25, 2019, 04:35:48 PM »

I don't think so. I think Clinton pretty much reached the floor in terms of performance with this group in 2016. I find it difficult to envision a 2020 candidate that does worse.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 25, 2019, 06:02:18 PM »

When in doubt, assume trends will continue. You'll be right the vast majority of the time.

Yes.
Logged
Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,986
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.13, S: -0.87

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 25, 2019, 07:28:09 PM »
« Edited: March 25, 2019, 07:32:33 PM by Neoliberalbusters »

When in doubt, assume trends will continue. You'll be right the vast majority of the time.

Yes.
"St. Louis County, MN will vote R in 2020 because it bigly trended/swung R in 2016."
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 25, 2019, 08:49:07 PM »

When in doubt, assume trends will continue. You'll be right the vast majority of the time.

Yes.
"St. Louis County, MN will vote R in 2020 because it bigly trended/swung R in 2016."

Who said anything about it voting R in 2020? We're talking about the trend.

And despite the country swinging from R+5 in 2014 to D+9 in 2018, a massive 14 point swing, Walz and Smith actually did worse in St. Louis County than Dayton and Franken did. So thanks for proving my point, lol.
Logged
Annatar
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 976
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 25, 2019, 09:47:11 PM »

Yes, there is no reason to believe that the GOP cannot achieve 90% vote shares among non-college whites in wide swathes of the country just like Democrats get 90% of the African American vote. Certainly 80% non-college white is a figure that is going to be reached in much of the upper south and lower Midwest in the next decade. In Missouri in 2012, only 34 of 114 counties voted more then 70% GOP, in 2016 that went up to 87 of 114, note since most of these counties have some African Americans, the GOP needs to win close to 80% of the white vote to get 70% overall. In Ohio, 30 counties voted over 70% GOP in 2016 vs 6 in 2012, Michigan and Wisconsin are about 10 years behind Missouri in this transition.

In Missouri, not a single county voted over 80% GOP in 2012, in 2016 20 counties did, in those counties, the GOP certainly reached 90% of the white vote. I expect the GOP to hit 80% of the total vote and therefore 90% of the non-college white across the the entire of the upper south and lower Midwest within the next decade with the upper midwest following the lower midwest soon after.

Logged
Orser67
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,947
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 25, 2019, 10:43:33 PM »

My guess is that the two parties will continue to polarize into a white, male, Christian party and a non-white, female, non-Christian party, especially if high levels of immigration continue. I'm skeptical that non-college whites would ever vote as monolithically as African Americans, but I definitely think the GOP can improve on the 66% of the non-college white vote that Trump won.
Logged
cvparty
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,100
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 26, 2019, 08:33:19 AM »

I don't think so. I think Clinton pretty much reached the floor in terms of performance with this group in 2016. I find it difficult to envision a 2020 candidate that does worse.
she didn't though, there's many other counties like lackawanna, mahoning, lucas, etc. that can vote less democratic. even in republican-leaning WWC counties they could still begcome even more so
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 26, 2019, 10:19:54 AM »

I'm sure the Democrats can fall further with our caricatures of "'WWC' voters."  The culturally conservative, economically moderate trucker from Michigan who voted for Obama and was one of the few who stayed loyal to his ancestral party and voted for Hillary in 2016, for example, might be defecting at any given midterm/election year.  However, "Whites without a college degree" is a lot broader of a category than we make it out to be; a lot of those people could be urban voters and Millennials.  The GOP is never going to be getting Black margins with the "WWC," for God's sake.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 26, 2019, 01:24:46 PM »

I'm sure the Democrats can fall further with our caricatures of "'WWC' voters."  The culturally conservative, economically moderate trucker from Michigan who voted for Obama and was one of the few who stayed loyal to his ancestral party and voted for Hillary in 2016, for example, might be defecting at any given midterm/election year.  However, "Whites without a college degree" is a lot broader of a category than we make it out to be; a lot of those people could be urban voters and Millennials.  The GOP is never going to be getting Black margins with the "WWC," for God's sake.

I'm not talking 90%+, but more like 70%+. Tongue
Logged
tuckfrump69
Newbie
*
Posts: 3
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 03, 2019, 04:47:12 PM »

This is the Big Question, or one of them, at least.

I tend to lean "Yes."
Yes at very least until the boomer generation is gone in the 2030s-40s, then politics will likely realign in such a way it's difficult to figure out what voting patterns will be like
Logged
OneJ
OneJ_
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,834
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 05, 2019, 09:39:14 PM »

Abrams did worse than Hillary in a bunch of rural, “WWC” counties in Georgia so of course.
Logged
CEO Mindset
penttilinkolafan
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 925
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 05, 2019, 11:17:02 PM »

probably, lol.

can't wait until democrats start bleeding working class browns/blacks once enough realize that feminism = white supremacy in practice
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 05, 2019, 11:30:12 PM »

For those who don't think that nearly all of Rural America can end up voting like much of the South in the long-term: you're wrong.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,711
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 06, 2019, 10:48:16 AM »

For those who don't think that nearly all of Rural America can end up voting like much of the South in the long-term: you're wrong.

This.  The GOP becoming a White identity party is going to continue to play very well in the rural Midwest.
Logged
dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,870
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 06, 2019, 11:46:23 AM »

I think so, then 20 years from now when the Boomers are gone and Gen X starts dying off, the WWC vote will go back to what it was pre 2012, so in short, they'll continue to lose them in the short term and gain them in the long term if and when race is less of an issue.
Logged
Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,986
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.13, S: -0.87

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 06, 2019, 12:00:29 PM »

For those who don't think that nearly all of Rural America can end up voting like much of the South in the long-term: you're wrong.
Atlas #analysis
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 10, 2019, 09:36:26 AM »

For those who don't think that nearly all of Rural America can end up voting like much of the South in the long-term: you're wrong.

I don't think the trends we have undeniably experienced will progress indefinitely to the point where we actually see this ridiculous urban-rural divide maps (that by then would have the GOP consistently getting its ass beat over and over) before something fundamentally shakes up our nation's voting patterns ... this seems to be absolutely crazy to this site.
Logged
Some of My Best Friends Are Gay
Enlightened_Centrist 420
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,599


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 10, 2019, 04:26:36 PM »

For those who don't think that nearly all of Rural America can end up voting like much of the South in the long-term: you're wrong.

I don't think the trends we have undeniably experienced will progress indefinitely to the point where we actually see this ridiculous urban-rural divide maps (that by then would have the GOP consistently getting its ass beat over and over) before something fundamentally shakes up our nation's voting patterns ... this seems to be absolutely crazy to this site.

I spent a large chunk of my childhood in one of these rural WWC Midwestern counties that atlas loves to fetishize about. I can’t possibly imagine what would make these voters shift even somewhat significantly more Dem. Nicole Galloway got BTFO in said county and she’s the only successful Missouri Democrat left on the bench and she couldn’t even crack 35% in the vast majority of rural counties against possibly the worst non-Todd Akin Republican statewide nominee in decades.

A realignment would make those voters shift more Dem.

It wasn't so long ago when you could have made the same argument for many major suburban counties in this country.


"Orange County hasn't gone Democratic since FDR, I can't imagine what would make these voters vote Democratic"

"The Atlanta suburbs have been titanium R since the 1980s, there's no way they'll ever vote Democratic!"

"Northern Virginia has been the backbone of the Virginia GOP since the 1950s, there's no way it could ever vote Democratic!"
Logged
Tartarus Sauce
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,363
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 10, 2019, 04:35:02 PM »

Potentially yes, in the same manner that Republicans can stand to lose even more suburban college-educated women.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: April 11, 2019, 10:55:36 AM »

For those who don't think that nearly all of Rural America can end up voting like much of the South in the long-term: you're wrong.

I don't think the trends we have undeniably experienced will progress indefinitely to the point where we actually see this ridiculous urban-rural divide maps (that by then would have the GOP consistently getting its ass beat over and over) before something fundamentally shakes up our nation's voting patterns ... this seems to be absolutely crazy to this site.

I spent a large chunk of my childhood in one of these rural WWC Midwestern counties that atlas loves to fetishize about. I can’t possibly imagine what would make these voters shift even somewhat significantly more Dem. Nicole Galloway got BTFO in said county and she’s the only successful Missouri Democrat left on the bench and she couldn’t even crack 35% in the vast majority of rural counties against possibly the worst non-Todd Akin Republican statewide nominee in decades.

A realignment would make those voters shift more Dem.

It wasn't so long ago when you could have made the same argument for many major suburban counties in this country.


"Orange County hasn't gone Democratic since FDR, I can't imagine what would make these voters vote Democratic"

"The Atlanta suburbs have been titanium R since the 1980s, there's no way they'll ever vote Democratic!"

"Northern Virginia has been the backbone of the Virginia GOP since the 1950s, there's no way it could ever vote Democratic!"

You and I are both smart enough to know that most of the GOP’s collapse in those suburbs is simply due to diversification. Sure, a large chunk of white voters shifted, but I would argue it was less that existing white people shifting their votes than it was new, younger, liberal whites moving in.

The point is, you either think one of the following if you think there won't be a VERY significant realignment in the next few decades:

1) The GOP will eventually collapse as a party due to getting absolutely SMOKED in Presidential elections due to largely only winning rural areas and select suburbs ... the math just isn't there for them to win ANY elections without getting a LOT of suburban support.

2) Population trends will take a surprising turn, and people will stop abandoning rural areas, small towns and mid-sized cities for urban centers and suburbs of those urban centers.  I don't see that happening any time soon, as it has been going on for decades.

For the GOP to continue to be a competitive major party along with the Democrats, ONE of those things has to be false.  Period.  It might not be in 2020 (obviously) or even 2030, but eventually the GOP will run out of votes.  We simply are not going to reach this point where the Republican Party happily loses election after election after election due to simple math but keeps on fulfilling this forum's stereotype of how trashy the party is, haha.  It will HAVE to adapt.  I don't have time to do this for all of the states, but here is Illinois' Presidential results:

Clinton (D-NY): 54.4% (2,977,498)
Trump (R-NY): 39.4% (2,118,179)

Conversely, if you simply took the populations of the counties Clinton won and the populations of the counties Trump won and added them up, this is what you would get:

Clinton (D-NY): 70.6% (9,034,953)
Trump (R-NY): 29.4% (3,767,070)

Even in a blue state like Illinois, Trump relied on TONS of voters in counties that Clinton won.  His votes (and the votes of all Republicans) are still ever so reliant on metro areas.  If the trends we see continue - both in terms of Republicans losing ground in metro areas AND metro areas continuing to grow at the expense of rural areas - the GOP will collapse.  Period.  Period, period, period.  This forum so vastly overestimates how many rural people there even are.  SOMETHING is going to shake things up before #1 above happens (because we all know #2 is not happening).  Republicans will eventually need to engage in things that will stop fanning the flames of the folks you are describing above.  They simply have to.  This will likely provide an eventual floor to how badly Democrats do with "WWC" voters, especially if we use the more accurate and meaningful definition of "White working class" to refer to Whites with average and below average incomes.  Not all "WWC" voters are rural, racist hicks; there are plenty in places like Youngstown, OH that do NOT have a baked in, life long loyalty to the GOP; a GOP in 20-30 years that isn't acting like our current one - which I believe I provided a coherent argument for why it simply can't afford to - might not have quite as intense of loyalty as Trump does with your "Obama-Trump" crowd.
Logged
cwh2018
Rookie
**
Posts: 109
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: April 11, 2019, 12:42:37 PM »

I assume the Gop is a urban/suburban/party of smaller,regional cities etc all ready.  If it was a "rural" party it would not be competitive at a federal level for congress and presidential elections. 
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.063 seconds with 11 queries.