Daily Double: Shock states and Re-alignments

[MillennialModerate]

1. What will be the next SHOCK state result? And will it represent a temporary jump or a permanent direction for the given state?

Most recent shock results were obviously PA, MI & WI which were likely temporary in nature but (we’ll see) Before that it was Indiana in 2008 (temporary) and before THAT was West Virginia in 2000 (Permanent)

2. When will the next re-alignment election be?

You could argue the last re-alignment took place in earnest in 1992 but the current crop of swings and solids didn’t solidify itself until 2000

[Grassroots]

Probably Georgia for the dems.

[Epaminondas]

Tejas going blue in 2024.

I'd add Michigan going Red in 2016 as a shocker. That was a 17% swing from 2008, like Kentucky or Louisiana going blue.

[Burke Bro]

1. I can see Georgia flipping to the Democratic column (and that would represent a permanent trend, at least for the time)
[/quote]
2. 2024

[Agonized-Statism]

1. Texas 2020s, Illinois 2030s.
2. We're in a realigning period. Awkward, still in spin from the breakup of the Reagan coalition and the dramatically growing urban-rural divide since Obama was elected. If 2016 is a false start for the parties' directions and Trump is an anomaly, after 2028. Whether Trump wins or loses, his moderate successor loses 2024 and the 2028 primaries get factional. A unifying leader emerges sometime in the next few election cycles. Democrats have the demographic advantage until conservative minorities and white liberal leaders clash down the road. If 2016 was truly a beginning for protectionism in the GOP, then that was a soft realignment and the red rust belt/blue sun belt map happens.

[Annatar]

We are in a continuation of the post 1996 trend which began in 2000 with the dems doing ever better in the big metro areas, and the GOP doing better everywhere else,. As long as the political cleavage remains culture I expect this alignment to harden and become more extreme going forward. 

[Karpatsky]

We are in a continuation of the post 1996 trend which began in 2000 with the dems doing ever better in the big metro areas, and the GOP doing better everywhere else,. As long as the political cleavage remains culture I expect this alignment to harden and become more extreme going forward. 

I think you're right, but I don't see it as sustainable - Dems have much more room to grow in the suburbs than Republicans do in increasingly maxed-out rurals.

[Annatar]

We are in a continuation of the post 1996 trend which began in 2000 with the dems doing ever better in the big metro areas, and the GOP doing better everywhere else,. As long as the political cleavage remains culture I expect this alignment to harden and become more extreme going forward. 

I think you're right, but I don't see it as sustainable - Dems have much more room to grow in the suburbs than Republicans do in increasingly maxed-out rurals.

Dems have really only gained more affluent suburbs though, if you look at 2000-2016 shift, more affluent suburbs shifted dem, working class suburbs had huge shifts towards GOP. Look at Jefferson county which is suburban county around St. Louis, 220k people, Bush lost it by 2.4% in 2000, Romney won it by 12.7%, Trump won by 35%, its large working class and middle class suburban counties that powered Trumps victory in 2016 and are the engine behind the GOP's success in elections. As long as working class and middle class suburban counties like Jefferson keep shifting Republican the way they have over the past 20 years and especially the way they shifted in 2012-2016, the GOP will be able to absorb negative trends in urban cores and richer suburbs.

[Person Man]

We are in a continuation of the post 1996 trend which began in 2000 with the dems doing ever better in the big metro areas, and the GOP doing better everywhere else,. As long as the political cleavage remains culture I expect this alignment to harden and become more extreme going forward. 

I think you're right, but I don't see it as sustainable - Dems have much more room to grow in the suburbs than Republicans do in increasingly maxed-out rurals.

Dems have really only gained more affluent suburbs though, if you look at 2000-2016 shift, more affluent suburbs shifted dem, working class suburbs had huge shifts towards GOP. Look at Jefferson county which is suburban county around St. Louis, 220k people, Bush lost it by 2.4% in 2000, Romney won it by 12.7%, Trump won by 35%, its large working class and middle class suburban counties that powered Trumps victory in 2016 and are the engine behind the GOP's success in elections. As long as working class and middle class suburban counties like Jefferson keep shifting Republican the way they have over the past 20 years and especially the way they shifted in 2012-2016, the GOP will be able to absorb negative trends in urban cores and richer suburbs.

Democrats don't really need to do better in rural areas, they just need to turn it around there. That might be easier.

[R.P. McM]

We are in a continuation of the post 1996 trend which began in 2000 with the dems doing ever better in the big metro areas, and the GOP doing better everywhere else,. As long as the political cleavage remains culture I expect this alignment to harden and become more extreme going forward.  

I think you're right, but I don't see it as sustainable - Dems have much more room to grow in the suburbs than Republicans do in increasingly maxed-out rurals.

Dems have really only gained more affluent suburbs though, if you look at 2000-2016 shift, more affluent suburbs shifted dem, working class suburbs had huge shifts towards GOP. Look at Jefferson county which is suburban county around St. Louis, 220k people, Bush lost it by 2.4% in 2000, Romney won it by 12.7%, Trump won by 35%, its large working class and middle class suburban counties that powered Trumps victory in 2016 and are the engine behind the GOP's success in elections.

Jefferson County, MO, is 94.3% non-Hispanic white, and has grown by 2.6% since 2010, less than half the national rate (6.0%). I think 'white' and 'stagnant' would be more descriptive terms than 'working-class.'

[Annatar]

I don't really see how Jefferson being white undermines my point, the GOP has gained broadly with white voters over the last 20 years, as for population growth, the difference between 2.6% and 6% is minuscule, America more generally is rapidly approaching a point where population growth will basically be 0.1 to 0.2% per annum, growth last year was 0.6% and will reach 0.5% early next decade as births continue to fall and deaths rise. 

[Politician]

GA for D's, MN for R's, eventually TX for D's and RI for R's, but 2024 or later for both.

Lol

[Ilhan Apologist]

Georgia isn't a shock state, considering everyone's expecting it. For a complete shock, I'd say one of the blood red states out West--they're all pretty small and a minor demographic shift could switch them.

[R.P. McM]

I don't really see how Jefferson being white undermines my point, the GOP has gained broadly with white voters over the last 20 years, [...]

Last 50 years, really. But that's sort of the point — 'suburban' and 'working-class' are a whole lot less salient than 'white' in this context.

[...] as for population growth, the difference between 2.6% and 6% is minuscule, America more generally is rapidly approaching a point where population growth will basically be 0.1 to 0.2% per annum, growth last year was 0.6% and will reach 0.5% early next decade as births continue to fall and deaths rise.  

I take your point, but I view the growth rate as significant in relative terms. A 94% non-Hispanic white county growing at less than half the national average has very little in common with Fairfax County, VA, Douglas County, CO, Forsyth County, GA, etc. Yeah, they're all suburban, but in terms of the evolving political geography, some of them are considerably more relevant.

[S019]

1. GA or TX

2. 2024 or 2028, when the Sunbelt flips blue and the Rust Belt flips R

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

If Georgia & Texas going D in the near-future isn't as farfetched anymore...

I'll go with South Carolina voting Dem sometime in the 2020's

[hurricanehink]

I'm agree with Georgia and Texas being possibilities, but considering their high population, it might take longer. I think Kansas has the potential next year to flip and be a shocker, especially if the Senate race is close.

[darklordoftech]

Georgia isn't a shock state, considering everyone's expecting it. For a complete shock, I'd say one of the blood red states out West--they're all pretty small and a minor demographic shift could switch them.

I know in the red states near California, they’re terrified of Californians moving in for this reason.

[Tartarus Sauce]

I don't really see how Jefferson being white undermines my point, the GOP has gained broadly with white voters over the last 20 years, as for population growth, the difference between 2.6% and 6% is minuscule, America more generally is rapidly approaching a point where population growth will basically be 0.1 to 0.2% per annum, growth last year was 0.6% and will reach 0.5% early next decade as births continue to fall and deaths rise.  

It undermines your point because the GOP is maxing out in places that are stagnating and the Democrats are going to gain more in places that are growing + generational turnover before the population trends go flat nationwide. The GOP actually cannot afford to keep getting blown out in the urban core and white collar suburbs at this rate, it's already locking them out of the popular vote under most circumstances and things will only get worse for them over the next two decades.

[Annatar]

I don't really see how Jefferson being white undermines my point, the GOP has gained broadly with white voters over the last 20 years, as for population growth, the difference between 2.6% and 6% is minuscule, America more generally is rapidly approaching a point where population growth will basically be 0.1 to 0.2% per annum, growth last year was 0.6% and will reach 0.5% early next decade as births continue to fall and deaths rise.  

It undermines your point because the GOP is maxing out in places that are stagnating and the Democrats are going to gain more in places that are growing + generational turnover before the population trends go flat nationwide. The GOP actually cannot afford to keep getting blown out in the urban core and white collar suburbs at this rate, it's already locking them out of the popular vote under most circumstances and things will only get worse for them over the next two decades.

I'm not sure generational turnover is hurting the GOP that much, voters in their 40's a decade ago were much less Republican then they are now as they have aged into their 50's, same goes for voters who were in their 30's but now are in 40's, as long as the GOP can shift every cohort more Republican over time as it has managed to do for the last 20 years it's not a big issue. As for the popular vote, outside of California Trump did better than Bush in 2000 so it's not clear that the trends are that bad, Bush carried the 49 states excluding CA plus DC by 0.8% overall in 2000, Trump won the 49 states plus DC by 1.1%, hence why he won more electoral votes.

[darklordoftech]

As for the popular vote, outside of California Trump did better than Bush in 2000 so it's not clear that the trends are that bad, Bush carried the 49 states excluding CA plus DC by 0.8% overall in 2000, Trump won the 49 states plus DC by 1.1%, hence why he won more electoral votes.

Any idea why Trump did better than Bush in the popular vote? Less turnout from Democrats?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

As for the popular vote, outside of California Trump did better than Bush in 2000 so it's not clear that the trends are that bad, Bush carried the 49 states excluding CA plus DC by 0.8% overall in 2000, Trump won the 49 states plus DC by 1.1%, hence why he won more electoral votes.

Any idea why Trump did better than Bush in the popular vote? Less turnout from Democrats?

Geographic self sorting and deliberately excluding the 1/7 of the country which has trended hardest towards the Democrats.

[darklordoftech]

As for the popular vote, outside of California Trump did better than Bush in 2000 so it's not clear that the trends are that bad, Bush carried the 49 states excluding CA plus DC by 0.8% overall in 2000, Trump won the 49 states plus DC by 1.1%, hence why he won more electoral votes.

Any idea why Trump did better than Bush in the popular vote? Less turnout from Democrats?

Geographic self sorting and deliberately excluding the 1/7 of the country which has trended hardest towards the Democrats.

“Deliberately excluding”?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

As for the popular vote, outside of California Trump did better than Bush in 2000 so it's not clear that the trends are that bad, Bush carried the 49 states excluding CA plus DC by 0.8% overall in 2000, Trump won the 49 states plus DC by 1.1%, hence why he won more electoral votes.

Any idea why Trump did better than Bush in the popular vote? Less turnout from Democrats?

Geographic self sorting and deliberately excluding the 1/7 of the country which has trended hardest towards the Democrats.

“Deliberately excluding”?

It's arbitrary cherry picking to make Trump's performance look better than it is.

[Annatar]

As for the popular vote, outside of California Trump did better than Bush in 2000 so it's not clear that the trends are that bad, Bush carried the 49 states excluding CA plus DC by 0.8% overall in 2000, Trump won the 49 states plus DC by 1.1%, hence why he won more electoral votes.

Any idea why Trump did better than Bush in the popular vote? Less turnout from Democrats?

Geographic self sorting and deliberately excluding the 1/7 of the country which has trended hardest towards the Democrats.

“Deliberately excluding”?

It's arbitrary cherry picking to make Trump's performance look better than it is.

My point is simply that the anti Republican trend in the 2000-2016 period has been overwhelmingly concentrated in California where the democrats have gained the most from demographic change and whites in CA becoming democratic whereas whites everywhere else have trended Republican. The issue with that is that if most of the favourable trend towards the democrats is concentrated in one state, than the situation in the EC and Senate will steadily get worse if most of the rest of the country is moving in the opposite direction. The fact that Clinton did worse than Al Gore outside of CA is a real issue and shows that outside of CA the Republicans have been able to offset demographic change by shifting voting patterns over time.

Also CA is not 1/7 of the country, is cast 14.2m out of 137.1m votes of 10.4%, so it would be more accurate to say CA is 1/10.