|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 06, 2020, 02:23:58 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: Virginiá)
  GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era (search mode)
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era  (Read 4916 times)
🌐
Blairite
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,284
United States


« on: July 23, 2019, 01:37:30 pm »

On the current path, I don't see a way forward.

Even a good map for the Republican is a losing map



Republican Party would have to be a very different party by then to win.

Flip New Mexico and Oregon and that map is a winner.

...but what demographics favor Republicans in New Mexico and Oregon?

If the GOP/Dems become more and more polarized by urban-Coastal-minorities vs rural-"Heartland"-white, well there's your answer.

Um, Oregon is urban and coastal and New Mexico is majority minorities, so I don't see your point. If Knute couldn't win Oregon, no Republican can, and winning New Mexico would require a realignment. A map like this for a cycle or two might get the GOP on board with NPV.
Logged
🌐
Blairite
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,284
United States


« Reply #1 on: August 14, 2019, 10:44:08 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.
Logged
🌐
Blairite
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,284
United States


« Reply #2 on: August 15, 2019, 11:26:10 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.

Do you have a link for this article?  If you are describing it accurately, then I question the methodology, since every figure I listed above indicates that Chicago is not about to enter a period of high growth.  If so, perhaps you can enlighten me as to why every county in the MSA is shrinking or stagnant, including Lake County, DuPage etc., (so neither the inner city, nor the suburbs- regardless of socioeconomic level, are growing), and why the Chicago MSA is only hitting 0.4% growth (contrast to, say, Houston, which is at an eye-popping 18%).  I think it's pretty obvious which one of these is going to end up having more relevance in the 21st century.  In fact, the Chicago MSA is the slowest growing metro in the entire top 20, one of the slowest in the top 50 even.. only 4 others are slower- Pittsburgh (shrinking at 1.34%), Buffalo (shrinking at 0.47%), Hartford (shrinking at 0.5%) and Cleveland (shrinking at 0.97%).

Your post has a lot of irrelevant fluff in it (like, e.g., Chicago will continue to be a "cosmopolitain agglomeration".. um, I wasn't arguing that Chicago won't be cosmopolitan?... also you spelled cosmopolitan wrong).  If we're attempting to project demographic trends of an urban area, I think I'm going to go ahead and stick with the data and numbers over your pontificating.  But if you actually have any numbers to present, I'd be happy to re-assess my position.
Screw my awful phone. Anyway, this is the article: https://www.google.com/amp/s/chicago.suntimes.com/platform/amp/columnists/2019/7/28/8928935/chicago-seven-cities-neighborhoods-ed-zotti-city-crossroads
Basically, this data puts Chicago in the same place as New York was in the '90s and early '00s. The city was starting to clean up, massive new development was starting for an influx of yuppies, corporations were relocating from the suburbs back to Manhattan, and the wealth base of the city was swelling but it wasn't reflected in the population growth rates yet because black neighborhoods were still emptying out and family sizes were plummeting. The same trends are at play in Chicago now, and the reason I say it's cosmopolitan and globally in a way other cities like St Louis or Cleveland aren't is grounded in real data. The corporate base is too strong to move away, college graduates are swarming into the city, the people moving in are richer than the ones moving out, construction in the Loop is at an unprecedented high and formerly declining neighborhoods are growing again. All the signs of growth are coming into place.
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