|           
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2020, 10:42:25 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)
  GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era (search mode)
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era  (Read 4835 times)
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,370


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -0.10

P P P

« on: August 14, 2019, 10:48:55 pm »

The reason a lot of millennials will have trouble fathoming this, is because many of them grew up in the 90s and started voting (or at least "paying attention" to politics) in the 00s or Bush years.  So they associate the GOP with what were some of the strongest elements in the party at the time, which includes, e.g., Southern Evangelicals.  Given that, some have difficulty seeing how a state like VT would ever vote for the party of Southern Baptists etc., without stopping to wonder what would happen if the GOP was no longer associated with either Baptists or the South, and in fact, if it was now the Democrats who were winning most of the South.  That is a scenario that a lot of current millennials will be cognitively incapable of envisioning, even though it is actually underway- TX, GA, NC- all trending D.  Meanwhile VT (every county but 1), RI, NH, CT, ME- all trending R.  

And of course, people being born now and that will vote in 2040 will have none of the associations that millennials currently have with the GOP.  Something that is difficult to accept but is nonetheless true (and it's forgivable, people have a tendency to believe everything revolves around their own experiences, but in fact, the world does move on).  We see this already happening with the GOP, having nominated its least religious candidate since I can remember, and where the Religious Right had minimal (basically no) impact on the primary or general election, and is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the base.

Remember- maps change.  In 20 years, there will be states voting R that no one today is guessing.  20 years ago, KY, WV, AR, TN- all D states.  Maps that purport to predict the future but don't flip enough states are bad maps.

Call me crazy, I think this reasoning could be applied to the northwest, too. If we have a populist GOP, Oregon would go first. If the GOP shifts back to its late 19th century character- coalition built on the well-to-do neoliberals fleeing more conservative minorities and/or progressives in the Democratic Party- this could actually happen to Washington first.
Hell no. A couple of hippies doesn't change the fact that Oregon is (and is only getting moreso) metropolitain and international. Also, I don't get how Connecticut is supposed to go Republican. I think the corridor from Hartford to New Haven to Fairfield County will keep it blue for a long time.

In regards to Chicago population trends, it's pretty clear it isn't following the rest of the rustbelt. The Tribune (I think) did a piece on it recently, and basically every single neighborhood in the city with the exception of the Far South Side is growing--to a pretty rapid extent. The Far South Side is absolutely bleeding, but it's bottomed out and will eventually gentrify. Meanwhile, the rest of the city is booming and is poised to follow a New Yorkesque trend over the next decade which will easily cancel out the shrinking on the Far South Side. Chicago is pretty clearly a cosmopolitain agglomeration which is going to have a lot of relevance in the 21st century, and it's economic base, construction, and relevance to the global economy clearly shows signs of it having more in common with coastal metropolises than the surrounding Rust Belt.


Current trends won’t last beyond 2028 at the latest . By the 2030s many of the trends what happen then will be unrecognizable to us today
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,370


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -0.10

P P P

« Reply #1 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
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,370


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -0.10

P P P

« Reply #2 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
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,370


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -0.10

P P P

« Reply #3 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
Pages: [1] Print 
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