|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 07, 2020, 02:43:24 pm
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: VirginiŠ)
  GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 Print
Author Topic: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era  (Read 4933 times)
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,550


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -0.10

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: August 16, 2019, 02:45:41 am »

If the Republicans continue on its Northern trajectory, it will be via hinging around non-college whites, so the areas with the highest concentrations of non-college whites will flip first or harden if they already have. These would become the new "Base states" and then you have to look and find what demographics are easiest to flip to get you a majority either in a particular state or in the nation as whole.

Practically speaking we are already there since Trump won 66% with non-college whites, while losing college educated whites. Trump cobbled together a majority (of the EC) by minimizing the bleeding with the 2000s GOP base, sunbelt-evangelical suburbs, but if those voters are no longer viable paths (ie, they are dead or being outvoted by minority-millennial coalitions), you have to find alternative routes.

The number one rule is that whoever they go for, it will be the group that requires the party to change the least and that also will factor in who is the next Democratic President and what their focus is.

The easiest group to augment non-college whites would be Midwest suburban voters, particularly those suburbs that are lacking in diversity. This secures that region (save Illinois). These suburbs lack the pressures (see my post above about top heaviness with Boomer whites to offset minority margins) that are long term threatening the GOP in Texas and Georgia and would be more likely to bounce back afterwards. The GOP didn't lose any suburban House seats in Wisconsin or Ohio in 2018 (and yes gerrys were a factor of course), but even looking at the county results for Governor: DeWine did better than Trump in Delaware County, Walker did better in Wow, and Rauner did better in the collar counties. By contrast Kemp did worse than Trump in Cobb and Gwinnett. McSally did worse in Maricopa and Cruz did worse in Tarrant.

Granted these were Governor and Senate races, but we are seeing a level of GOP resilience in that area even with Trump as President that could translate into better performances post Trump, which leaves the GOP as a more Rust belt/Midwest centric party over the course of the next decade. This would invariably translate into candidates who by necessity of survival have to successfully combine Trump level support with non-college whites, and decent college white support in the suburbs. This would invariably translate into better performances over time in Illinois (~40s) and after a couple of cycles being shut out trying to go the GA/TX route (call it the sunbelt blue wall in a future scenario), throwing some money into Illinois begins to look appealing. Throw in some third party vote splitting and a narrow 48%-46% win in the 2030's isn't unreasonable.

Problem is that wouldnt get GOP to 270 EV even with 2010s appropriations of electoral college votes.





GOP only get to 257 EV with this map and in future decades that number will decrease. The fact is you need on of CA, NY, or TX to win elections and with all 3 gone , the GOP will be locked out.

Dems can even counter IL on that map with NC and in future decades maybe even just MS as well .
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,207
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: August 16, 2019, 03:28:14 am »

That's when you start investing in CT, NJ, DE, ILL and OR to try and shake something lose.


Logged
I'm a Bernie Bro but let's unite behind Biden
Lakigigar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,151
Belgium


Political Matrix
E: -2.84, S: -2.96

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: August 16, 2019, 08:00:08 am »

What the GOP needs to do is move to the European populist right and they'll win elections back again.

First post Trump victory



Assuming the re-alignmen led to modern liberal vs europopulist right split in 2040's/2050's



If split is moderate vs left wing populist more like this, which will improve GOP performances among minorities slowly (which could slow trends), while suburbanites could swing GOP quite fast.

Logged
I'm a Bernie Bro but let's unite behind Biden
Lakigigar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,151
Belgium


Political Matrix
E: -2.84, S: -2.96

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: August 16, 2019, 08:10:17 am »
« Edited: August 16, 2019, 08:14:11 am by Lakigigar »

If the Republicans continue on its Northern trajectory, it will be via hinging around non-college whites, so the areas with the highest concentrations of non-college whites will flip first or harden if they already have. These would become the new "Base states" and then you have to look and find what demographics are easiest to flip to get you a majority either in a particular state or in the nation as whole.

Practically speaking we are already there since Trump won 66% with non-college whites, while losing college educated whites. Trump cobbled together a majority (of the EC) by minimizing the bleeding with the 2000s GOP base, sunbelt-evangelical suburbs, but if those voters are no longer viable paths (ie, they are dead or being outvoted by minority-millennial coalitions), you have to find alternative routes.

The number one rule is that whoever they go for, it will be the group that requires the party to change the least and that also will factor in who is the next Democratic President and what their focus is.

The easiest group to augment non-college whites would be Midwest suburban voters, particularly those suburbs that are lacking in diversity. This secures that region (save Illinois). These suburbs lack the pressures (see my post above about top heaviness with Boomer whites to offset minority margins) that are long term threatening the GOP in Texas and Georgia and would be more likely to bounce back afterwards. The GOP didn't lose any suburban House seats in Wisconsin or Ohio in 2018 (and yes gerrys were a factor of course), but even looking at the county results for Governor: DeWine did better than Trump in Delaware County, Walker did better in Wow, and Rauner did better in the collar counties. By contrast Kemp did worse than Trump in Cobb and Gwinnett. McSally did worse in Maricopa and Cruz did worse in Tarrant.

Granted these were Governor and Senate races, but we are seeing a level of GOP resilience in that area even with Trump as President that could translate into better performances post Trump, which leaves the GOP as a more Rust belt/Midwest centric party over the course of the next decade. This would invariably translate into candidates who by necessity of survival have to successfully combine Trump level support with non-college whites, and decent college white support in the suburbs. This would invariably translate into better performances over time in Illinois (~40s) and after a couple of cycles being shut out trying to go the GA/TX route (call it the sunbelt blue wall in a future scenario), throwing some money into Illinois begins to look appealing. Throw in some third party vote splitting and a narrow 48%-46% win in the 2030's isn't unreasonable.

Problem is that wouldnt get GOP to 270 EV even with 2010s appropriations of electoral college votes.





GOP only get to 257 EV with this map and in future decades that number will decrease. The fact is you need on of CA, NY, or TX to win elections and with all 3 gone , the GOP will be locked out.

Dems can even counter IL on that map with NC and in future decades maybe even just MS as well .

I think in the far future both NY and TX will/could be competitive. Upstate NY will swing dramatically republican, population decreases in rural NY and increases in NYC however, so i'd think it stays at least in the likely D column, but will get closer

TX has young suburbanites and hispanics. If the GOP wants to keep TX, they'll have to keep turnout low. Once TX is competitive, it will swing dramatically Democratic.

But maybe the GOP doesn't need any of those three states, even if GOP does very well among hispanics, i think TX will be lean / likely D

 

although maybe i just proved your point, because the EV's will be more in favour of the Dems...

But we will likely see a re-alignment. GOP must move to Euroright-wing populism or towards a right-wing liberal party. The post-Trump years will be hard, and i think the Dems might hold the presidency for a while, while downballot in the senate and house Republicans might do better. Some will be disaffected by the evolution of the GOP, unless it moves towards Europopulism. If it moves to Europopulism, we might see just like in Europe a stream from Labourites / soc dems towards the Europopulist party, who are now unlikely to vote GOP (exc. maybe Trump first term). If it moves towards a moderate right-wing conservative or a right-wing liberal party, it will slowly increase it's share among minorities and suburbanites over time and cancel current trends more, but it will depend on what the Democrats will become who will obviously be very socially liberal in the future.

But what is certain is that the GOP needs to change in order to stay competitive nationally and in TX.
Logged
jimmie
jamespol
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,714


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: August 18, 2019, 02:10:51 pm »

The easiest group to augment non-college whites would be Midwest suburban voters, particularly those suburbs that are lacking in diversity. This secures that region (save Illinois). These suburbs lack the pressures (see my post above about top heaviness with Boomer whites to offset minority margins) that are long term threatening the GOP in Texas and Georgia and would be more likely to bounce back afterwards. The GOP didn't lose any suburban House seats in Wisconsin or Ohio in 2018 (and yes gerrys were a factor of course), but even looking at the county results for Governor: DeWine did better than Trump in Delaware County, Walker did better in Wow, and Rauner did better in the collar counties. By contrast Kemp did worse than Trump in Cobb and Gwinnett. McSally did worse in Maricopa and Cruz did worse in Tarrant.

Granted these were Governor and Senate races, but we are seeing a level of GOP resilience in that area even with Trump as President that could translate into better performances post Trump, which leaves the GOP as a more Rust belt/Midwest centric party over the course of the next decade. This would invariably translate into candidates who by necessity of survival have to successfully combine Trump level support with non-college whites, and decent college white support in the suburbs. This would invariably translate into better performances over time in Illinois (~40s) and after a couple of cycles being shut out trying to go the GA/TX route (call it the sunbelt blue wall in a future scenario), throwing some money into Illinois begins to look appealing. Throw in some third party vote splitting and a narrow 48%-46% win in the 2030's isn't unreasonable.

On paragraph one I have argued many times that with the exception of Lake County that the Illnois suburban collar ring will be tilting slightly Republican on local races. There is much more of a Chicago vs rest of state dynamic there. Contrast that to Cobb and Gwinnett Counties in Georgia which will almost certainly be likely to solid Democratic up and down the ballot and with less sitgma towards Atlanta than Chicago.

But on the other hand, issue by issue, the Chicago collar counties are more liberal and are far more embracing of public transportation and less socially conservative. That should be enough to keep them solid Democratic in federal races barring a GOP landslide.

On paragraph 2, people need to stop pretending Illinois will be the GOP savior in answer to demographics flipping Texas to the Democrats. Right now Texas is simply voting more demographically in line to what it was before! And have you seen the types of people moving to Texas? They are largely conservative! The Democratic lock out in Texas will be over if it not already over but you could argue that maybe, just maybe, Texas was inflatedly Republican.

Also I would not bet on a state that will have 15 to 16 electoral votes to be the savior of the GOP. Long term it will probably bump up to 20 again when climate change takes toll of course. But the GOP is better off investing in Texas than Illinois.

Another point on Illinois, the metro east is one of the very few ancestral Democratic areas that could revert back a little. They are not particularly conservative counites (Madison, St Clair, etc).


Of course we really can not predict more than a decade into the future.
Logged
sg0508
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,750
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: August 18, 2019, 07:22:35 pm »

They must continue to make inroads with blue collar workers, especially those who are more traditional and more socially moderate.

I believe 2020 will be the final time the GOP won't have to "try" to win in TX.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,207
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: August 19, 2019, 02:10:51 am »
« Edited: August 19, 2019, 02:15:02 am by Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee »

The easiest group to augment non-college whites would be Midwest suburban voters, particularly those suburbs that are lacking in diversity. This secures that region (save Illinois). These suburbs lack the pressures (see my post above about top heaviness with Boomer whites to offset minority margins) that are long term threatening the GOP in Texas and Georgia and would be more likely to bounce back afterwards. The GOP didn't lose any suburban House seats in Wisconsin or Ohio in 2018 (and yes gerrys were a factor of course), but even looking at the county results for Governor: DeWine did better than Trump in Delaware County, Walker did better in Wow, and Rauner did better in the collar counties. By contrast Kemp did worse than Trump in Cobb and Gwinnett. McSally did worse in Maricopa and Cruz did worse in Tarrant.

Granted these were Governor and Senate races, but we are seeing a level of GOP resilience in that area even with Trump as President that could translate into better performances post Trump, which leaves the GOP as a more Rust belt/Midwest centric party over the course of the next decade. This would invariably translate into candidates who by necessity of survival have to successfully combine Trump level support with non-college whites, and decent college white support in the suburbs. This would invariably translate into better performances over time in Illinois (~40s) and after a couple of cycles being shut out trying to go the GA/TX route (call it the sunbelt blue wall in a future scenario), throwing some money into Illinois begins to look appealing. Throw in some third party vote splitting and a narrow 48%-46% win in the 2030's isn't unreasonable.

On paragraph one I have argued many times that with the exception of Lake County that the Illnois suburban collar ring will be tilting slightly Republican on local races. There is much more of a Chicago vs rest of state dynamic there. Contrast that to Cobb and Gwinnett Counties in Georgia which will almost certainly be likely to solid Democratic up and down the ballot and with less sitgma towards Atlanta than Chicago.

But on the other hand, issue by issue, the Chicago collar counties are more liberal and are far more embracing of public transportation and less socially conservative. That should be enough to keep them solid Democratic in federal races barring a GOP landslide.

On paragraph 2, people need to stop pretending Illinois will be the GOP savior in answer to demographics flipping Texas to the Democrats. Right now Texas is simply voting more demographically in line to what it was before! And have you seen the types of people moving to Texas? They are largely conservative! The Democratic lock out in Texas will be over if it not already over but you could argue that maybe, just maybe, Texas was inflatedly Republican.

Also I would not bet on a state that will have 15 to 16 electoral votes to be the savior of the GOP. Long term it will probably bump up to 20 again when climate change takes toll of course. But the GOP is better off investing in Texas than Illinois.

Another point on Illinois, the metro east is one of the very few ancestral Democratic areas that could revert back a little. They are not particularly conservative counites (Madison, St Clair, etc).


Of course we really can not predict more than a decade into the future.


Not predict, project reasonable scenarios based on a set of factors that would dictate such scenario occurring. That is what this entire thread is about.

I don't disagree with your points about the GOP and Illinois, right now. But politics is evolutionary and parties exist to get to power. Over the longer term, if they cannot get to power they will adapt to reclaim it.

Over the medium to long term the GOP faces a steeper climb in the sunbelt because of the reasons I explored in my post about Mississippi. They are too dependent on winning white votes by inflated margins and those margins are coming from a particular age group that isn't getting any younger. That is fundamentally the underlying root of the GOP's problems in GA, TX and many other places. The White vote is recessing towards the national average in those states and the more educated the population, the more it will recess putting the GOP in a very precarious spot going forward.

They are not in such dire straits outside of the sunbelt. Virtually every trend map in the last three cycles has confirmed this dynamic to be occurring.

What happens to the GOP if TX whites fall to 60% Republican? It becomes solidly democratic. 50*60 = 30%  Add another 10% from Hispanics or so (and that is probably too generous by that point). Right now it is 57*69 = 39% plus 30*34 = 10% for a total of ~50%.

Who do you think is going to be easier to flip? Secular white moderates in Illinois suburbs, or Millienial/Gen Z Whites/Latinos in TX for whom the state level GOP will be radioactive? Democratic control of Illinois helps the GOP because the GOP isn't in a position to wreck themselves long term like they are in a position to do in Texas, Arizona and Georgia through trying to engage in "corrective measures". Call it the Pete Wilson effect.

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 #57 on: August 19, 2019, 11:14:04 am »

On paragraph 2, people need to stop pretending Illinois will be the GOP savior in answer to demographics flipping Texas to the Democrats. Right now Texas is simply voting more demographically in line to what it was before! And have you seen the types of people moving to Texas? They are largely conservative! The Democratic lock out in Texas will be over if it not already over but you could argue that maybe, just maybe, Texas was inflatedly Republican.

Also I would not bet on a state that will have 15 to 16 electoral votes to be the savior of the GOP. Long term it will probably bump up to 20 again when climate change takes toll of course. But the GOP is better off investing in Texas than Illinois.


Who are these "people" who are claiming that IL will be the GOP's "savior?"  I just flipped back through this thread and no one said that.

What was being argued, was that if current demographic trends continue, there will come a time in a couple decades where the GOP will find it easier to win IL than states like TX and GA.  And that is a completely reasonable projection.

No one in this thread has said this is necessarily good for the GOP, much less the "savior," so I'm not sure why you imagined it.  All things considered, I suspect most Republicans would rather have TX, especially given that it has the fastest growing metros in the US, and IL is shrinking.
Logged
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,366
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: August 19, 2019, 11:43:16 am »

Right now Texas is simply voting more demographically in line to what it was before! And have you seen the types of people moving to Texas? They are largely conservative! The Democratic lock out in Texas will be over if it not already over but you could argue that maybe, just maybe, Texas was inflatedly Republican.

I think youíre conflating voting patterns with margins here. The Democratic base in 1990ís Texas was very different than the one that is currently rising up. The last Democratic nominee for President that won Texas carried the modern day boundaries of TX-13. The maps for winning statewide Democratic Party members in the 1990ís had far more rural support while siphoning off votes in the suburbs to the GOP.

The floor of liberals + millenials (Texas iirc is the second or third youngest state by median age), and minorities is not only rising but is also forming a generic left wing voting bloc. Somebody as left wing as Beto wouldnít have had a snowballís chance in Hell winning statewide in 1990.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,550


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -0.10

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: August 19, 2019, 01:18:09 pm »
« Edited: August 19, 2019, 01:22:06 pm by Old School Republican »

The easiest group to augment non-college whites would be Midwest suburban voters, particularly those suburbs that are lacking in diversity. This secures that region (save Illinois). These suburbs lack the pressures (see my post above about top heaviness with Boomer whites to offset minority margins) that are long term threatening the GOP in Texas and Georgia and would be more likely to bounce back afterwards. The GOP didn't lose any suburban House seats in Wisconsin or Ohio in 2018 (and yes gerrys were a factor of course), but even looking at the county results for Governor: DeWine did better than Trump in Delaware County, Walker did better in Wow, and Rauner did better in the collar counties. By contrast Kemp did worse than Trump in Cobb and Gwinnett. McSally did worse in Maricopa and Cruz did worse in Tarrant.

Granted these were Governor and Senate races, but we are seeing a level of GOP resilience in that area even with Trump as President that could translate into better performances post Trump, which leaves the GOP as a more Rust belt/Midwest centric party over the course of the next decade. This would invariably translate into candidates who by necessity of survival have to successfully combine Trump level support with non-college whites, and decent college white support in the suburbs. This would invariably translate into better performances over time in Illinois (~40s) and after a couple of cycles being shut out trying to go the GA/TX route (call it the sunbelt blue wall in a future scenario), throwing some money into Illinois begins to look appealing. Throw in some third party vote splitting and a narrow 48%-46% win in the 2030's isn't unreasonable.

On paragraph one I have argued many times that with the exception of Lake County that the Illnois suburban collar ring will be tilting slightly Republican on local races. There is much more of a Chicago vs rest of state dynamic there. Contrast that to Cobb and Gwinnett Counties in Georgia which will almost certainly be likely to solid Democratic up and down the ballot and with less sitgma towards Atlanta than Chicago.

But on the other hand, issue by issue, the Chicago collar counties are more liberal and are far more embracing of public transportation and less socially conservative. That should be enough to keep them solid Democratic in federal races barring a GOP landslide.

On paragraph 2, people need to stop pretending Illinois will be the GOP savior in answer to demographics flipping Texas to the Democrats. Right now Texas is simply voting more demographically in line to what it was before! And have you seen the types of people moving to Texas? They are largely conservative! The Democratic lock out in Texas will be over if it not already over but you could argue that maybe, just maybe, Texas was inflatedly Republican.

Also I would not bet on a state that will have 15 to 16 electoral votes to be the savior of the GOP. Long term it will probably bump up to 20 again when climate change takes toll of course. But the GOP is better off investing in Texas than Illinois.

Another point on Illinois, the metro east is one of the very few ancestral Democratic areas that could revert back a little. They are not particularly conservative counites (Madison, St Clair, etc).


Of course we really can not predict more than a decade into the future.


Not predict, project reasonable scenarios based on a set of factors that would dictate such scenario occurring. That is what this entire thread is about.

I don't disagree with your points about the GOP and Illinois, right now. But politics is evolutionary and parties exist to get to power. Over the longer term, if they cannot get to power they will adapt to reclaim it.

Over the medium to long term the GOP faces a steeper climb in the sunbelt because of the reasons I explored in my post about Mississippi. They are too dependent on winning white votes by inflated margins and those margins are coming from a particular age group that isn't getting any younger. That is fundamentally the underlying root of the GOP's problems in GA, TX and many other places. The White vote is recessing towards the national average in those states and the more educated the population, the more it will recess putting the GOP in a very precarious spot going forward.

They are not in such dire straits outside of the sunbelt. Virtually every trend map in the last three cycles has confirmed this dynamic to be occurring.

What happens to the GOP if TX whites fall to 60% Republican? It becomes solidly democratic. 50*60 = 30%  Add another 10% from Hispanics or so (and that is probably too generous by that point). Right now it is 57*69 = 39% plus 30*34 = 10% for a total of ~50%.

Who do you think is going to be easier to flip? Secular white moderates in Illinois suburbs, or Millienial/Gen Z Whites/Latinos in TX for whom the state level GOP will be radioactive? Democratic control of Illinois helps the GOP because the GOP isn't in a position to wreck themselves long term like they are in a position to do in Texas, Arizona and Georgia through trying to engage in "corrective measures". Call it the Pete Wilson effect.




Here is the problem, by the time IL flips GOP according to your calcualtions, IL will be gone as well.




While GOP gets to 271 EV currently with that map , in the future this map will be a losing map for the GOP . Add NC to the Dem column and GOP gets to 256 EV with current EV appropriation and that number will certainly be lower by then.

Say GOP makes up for NC with CT , RI , VT and DE





That yes gets GOP over the top with 273 EV , but that is with current appropriation for the EC, but likely wont be enough as soon as 2024.


Now by 2032 its possible SC could be gone as well as if the GOP share of the White Vote Drops from 70% to 60% they would probably lose even with current Demographics. This very much could happen throughout the deep south even in AL as remember Moore won 68% of the White Vote in AL and lost . So  if this change also happens would doom the GOP even if they win OR and WA(and this isnt taking into account FL which I am keeping in the GOP column).


So the fact is then the GOP would have to win big coastal states like NY or CA at that point which are demographically much much more unfavorable than TX .



So really the best bet for the GOP is for Trump to lose,  then for them to adapt to appeal to the changing electorate in the Sunbelt because if they dont , they will keep losing .

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 #60 on: August 19, 2019, 02:40:03 pm »
« Edited: August 19, 2019, 02:44:16 pm by AN63093 »

OSR, one thing you're assuming is that EV distribution will remain on current trend lines.  In other words that areas growing now will continue to at the same rate, that the sunbelt will continue growing uniformly, and so on.  I think that instead, you have to look at growth areas one by one, and on a case by case basis.

I think some places, like TX, GA, NC and CO will continue to grow at high rates (at least for the next couple decades), but things could rapidly change.  Take, for example, CA.  CA had two significant periods of growth- one in the early 20th century, and then another post WW2 period that peaked in the 60s and stayed strong through the 80s, but then began decreasing.  The growth has actually slowed in CA now.. obviously, it is not shrinking or anything like that.  But that being said, the days of CA hitting >10% appear to be behind it and it's not among the growth leaders in the country anymore.. it's projected to hit about the US average on the next census.

The growth in CA is mainly centered around the Bay Area currently (compare to, e.g., the LA metro), and how sustainable this is (and for how long, particularly as millennials age and start wanting to begin families, buy houses etc) is a fair question IMO.  Keep in mind that the Bay Area is largely anchored by Silicon Valley- but the country's center for tech innovation can (and has) changed over time.  For much of the 20th century, it was mostly centered in the Northeast, and Silicon Valley didn't really begin to displace it until the 1970s.  It is certainly conceivable that it could shift again, say to TX maybe? (to some degree, that has already begun).

And take other states- like how much longer do we expect the growth in AZ and FL to continue if its largely driven by retirees?  Also consider NY- does it make sense for the GOP to start thinking about how to win it, if its among the slowest growing states in the US (even below MI), such that at some point, if trends don't reverse, it will basically just be the city and that's it?

A CA that is stagnant for the next 20-30 years has fairly profound implications for the EC, especially if other states are regularly hitting >10-15% in its place.  What looks like a disadvantage now, may not in a few decades if the EC has changed.  Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that CA is going to suddenly transform into the rust belt or something, but what I am suggesting is that when we make projections, we can't just look at population trends and assume they're uniform across the country, and have to also question assumptions about how the EVs will be allocated.
Logged
jimmie
jamespol
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,714


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: August 19, 2019, 07:50:53 pm »
« Edited: August 21, 2019, 03:08:36 am by jimmie »

It is impossible to predict how elections will go long term especially more than a decade in advanced.

Yes the GOP will have to adapt but so many assume Illinois will flip and save the GOP electorally. That is mathematically impossible.

The GOP will adapt to win in the future that could include Illinois but ot would be a stupid state to focus on entirely.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,472
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: August 19, 2019, 09:18:24 pm »

^ Jimmie, youíre the only one focusing on IL entirely. Wink
Logged
TrendsareUsuallyReal
TrendsareReal
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,194
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: August 20, 2019, 09:23:05 am »

What a dumpster fire of a thread. How are people seriously making the argument that most people moving into Texas are conservatives? That is blatantly false when you look at the growing regions of the state: every county with a booming population has zoomed left over the past decade.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,989
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: August 20, 2019, 10:40:32 am »

What a dumpster fire of a thread. How are people seriously making the argument that most people moving into Texas are conservatives? That is blatantly false when you look at the growing regions of the state: every county with a booming population has zoomed left over the past decade.



It's an exit poll so take it with a grain of salt, but the conservative expat narrative isn't totally baseless. If transplants are whiter and older than 'natives' and 'native' millennial whites aren't voting GOP at the ultra high rates of their boomer parents, it isn't that far out there to think transplants are a bit to the right of born and raised Texans.
Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,000
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: August 20, 2019, 11:04:45 am »

It is impossible to predict how erections will go long term especially more than a decade in advanced.

Yes the GOP will have to adapt but so many assume Illinois will flip and save the GOP electorally. That is mathematically impossible.

The GOP will adapt to win in the future that could include Illinois but ot would be a stupid state to focus on entirely.

Might wanna edit one letter in your post...
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,550


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -0.10

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: August 20, 2019, 11:05:17 am »

What a dumpster fire of a thread. How are people seriously making the argument that most people moving into Texas are conservatives? That is blatantly false when you look at the growing regions of the state: every county with a booming population has zoomed left over the past decade.

3 years not a decade lol . Texas trended R in 2012 and 2014 and potentially even 2010.
Logged
Wherever you want to go, you can't go there!
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,422
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: August 20, 2019, 11:34:24 am »

There was once a COGOP troll on this website saying that Colorado was going from Lean R to Likely R thanks to the influx of new workers and special interest groups.
Logged
TrendsareUsuallyReal
TrendsareReal
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,194
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: August 20, 2019, 12:02:05 pm »

What a dumpster fire of a thread. How are people seriously making the argument that most people moving into Texas are conservatives? That is blatantly false when you look at the growing regions of the state: every county with a booming population has zoomed left over the past decade.



It's an exit poll so take it with a grain of salt, but the conservative expat narrative isn't totally baseless. If transplants are whiter and older than 'natives' and 'native' millennial whites aren't voting GOP at the ultra high rates of their boomer parents, it isn't that far out there to think transplants are a bit to the right of born and raised Texans.

And anyone with a brain capable of the smallest amount of logical reasoning can add two and two together and look at a damn map of the state and see the areas that havenít grown (ie-highest to the largest amount of native Texans) have only gotten redder. Meanwhile look at the counties where people are moving to: Travis, Williamson, DFW, Bexar, Harris, Fort Bend) and itís abundantly clear that the transplants are driving the majority of the change. That exit poll is BS
Logged
TrendsareUsuallyReal
TrendsareReal
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,194
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: August 20, 2019, 12:04:20 pm »

What a dumpster fire of a thread. How are people seriously making the argument that most people moving into Texas are conservatives? That is blatantly false when you look at the growing regions of the state: every county with a booming population has zoomed left over the past decade.

3 years not a decade lol . Texas trended R in 2012 and 2014 and potentially even 2010.

I know youíre convinced that Texas isnít a problematic state for Republicans and I actually encourage you to continue thinking that, but I do want to point out the bluening  of Texas started ten years ago when Obama became the first Democrat in a long time to win Harris County and Dallas County. The signs started showing up then
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,207
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: August 20, 2019, 09:38:18 pm »
« Edited: August 20, 2019, 09:42:23 pm by Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee »

The problem with that question is that a millenial born in 1992 in Tarrant County counts as "born in Texas" where as a Baby boomer who moved to Texas in 1992 counts as moved to Texas. You need an age break down of that question.

You also have to remember that for years the people moving to NC were Republican leaning and now that situation has changed. The same happened with New Hampshire.

The whole population of "Moved to Texas" doesn't matter if it includes people that where there voting in 2004. What matters is who is moving to Texas NOW and how they voting.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,207
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: August 20, 2019, 09:50:01 pm »

What a dumpster fire of a thread. How are people seriously making the argument that most people moving into Texas are conservatives? That is blatantly false when you look at the growing regions of the state: every county with a booming population has zoomed left over the past decade.

3 years not a decade lol . Texas trended R in 2012 and 2014 and potentially even 2010.

Mittens was a very good fit for a certain kind of high end, college educated white suburban Republican, even in the sunbelt. He won Atlanta burbs in the 2008 primaries against Huckabee and McCain for instance.

2014 has to be placed in context, it was the lowest turnout election since 1942. I love to point this out, but Kasich got 300,000 less votes than DeWine and about the same number of votes he got in 2010 when he basically tied with Strickland. The whole reason Kasich got 63% was 800,000 Dems didn't vote. Sandoval while getting 70% of the vote, got less raw votes than Laxalt who got 45%.

And in Texas Abbot got almost 2 million less votes in 2014, while winning by a bigger margin than he did over Lupe Valdez.

2014 data is very misleading thus, because a lot of the voters that are driving these trends didn't vote.

Even in 2014, there was a massive exit poll age gap of almost 40% between the oldest voting block and the youngest.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,207
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: August 20, 2019, 09:56:57 pm »

Consider this for a minute, if Texas ends up voting like CA and NY, then it by extension becomes just as easy to win the latter as it does the former. Basically the end game is that the GOP has to evolve enough to get back to competing on a 1976 style map because there will be too few areas that it can dominate exclusively while letting the other party do the same in some other states.
Logged
Statilius the Epicurean
Thersites
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,183
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: August 21, 2019, 01:00:46 am »
« Edited: August 21, 2019, 01:09:09 am by Statilius the Epicurean »

I agree with Blairite that it's wishful thinking to predict Chicago going the way of Detroit considering it's a global city with a strong knowledge base, the exact type of place which in the world economy is poised for massive growth. If Republicans have to bet on Illinois going red then they're in a pretty desperate situation.  

IMO post-Trump the GOP should just nominate a black guy like Tim Scott to detoxify the party on race. Or get the first Hispanic president. Marry that to Trump-lite nationalism and I don't see why you couldn't largely retain non-college whites while eating in to the Democrats' current absurdly huge margins with minorities. Maybe it will take another few cycles but there will reach a point where everyone gets tired of unending racial polarisation and a mold-breaking nominee will be perfectly place to unite the country on a 2008 Obama post-racial message.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,989
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: August 21, 2019, 05:46:21 am »

The problem with that question is that a millenial born in 1992 in Tarrant County counts as "born in Texas" where as a Baby boomer who moved to Texas in 1992 counts as moved to Texas. You need an age break down of that question.

You also have to remember that for years the people moving to NC were Republican leaning and now that situation has changed. The same happened with New Hampshire.

The whole population of "Moved to Texas" doesn't matter if it includes people that where there voting in 2004. What matters is who is moving to Texas NOW and how they voting.

Yeah that probably explains the difference. Thanks.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 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