Where do the Republicans go....

[morgieb]

.....if this is the electoral map?

So basically the Midwest remains static and perhaps even shifts a bit right vis a vis 2016, but the Sunbelt shifts hard.

Now I admit it's unlikely, especially with Biden as the candidate. But I feel that once those Sunbelt states flip, they aren't coming back. So if Dems win like this, how do the Republicans counter without repudiating the hard right?

[Podgy the Bear]

I doubt that TX will flip before FL and NC.  Nevertheless, a successful Sun Belt strategy by the Democrats means that the one remaining attractive area for the Republicans is the Senate.  Which is why targeting small states and building a strong block of candidates at the local levels (a modification of the 50 state strategy) pays dividends to win state and local offices.

The Republicans have played the game of politics extremely well, and they have done an excellent job to pack the federal courts for years to come.  Republicans are a more cohesive force and could easily have success as the "out" party as they did during the Obama years.  They know how to exploit divisions in the Democratic Party.

But as this country continues to change, I suppose that Republicans will have to moderate their stands to attract support.  They'll have to do something to get suburban voters back.  And somehow, they have to target young voters, people of color, LGBT, etc.  Otherwise, they look to become the Democrats of the 1920s.

[Adam Griffin]

Where do the Republicans go....

To hell. This is the future of the hyper-polarized climate they built. A Democratic Party no longer reliant upon the Rust Belt can't lose a presidential election under these parameters unless it's held as a special election in an off-year or the Democratic incumbent murdered millions of American citizens. It's a non-spoken fact that Democrats are basically competing for as long as they can in the Rust Belt to give the Sunbelt time to emerge as its replacement.

[DaWN]

They'll heavily contest MN and ME, and start on some other north-eastern states. It may leave them in the wilderness for a cycle or three, but it won't be permanent.

[Former President tack50]

As I said on another thread, assuming the Sunbelt will flip while the Midwest remains static, or even if it flips R hard; means Dems would be consistently be winning the Popular vote by the order of 5 points or so.

Anyways, I doubt Texas or Georgia would become safe R states, so they just need to flip both and the Republican wins. While probably losing the popular vote by 5 points or so, which is, all things considered, a pretty good performance.

In that universe a Republican PV win of say, 2 points, would lead to an R landslide.

[here2view]

They'd have to focus on flipping Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Maine during the next cycle, then hope they can flip back Georgia or Texas.

[ProgressiveModerate]

They could be competative, I expect the EC to be more like this in the future: https://www.yapms.com/app/?m=22ut

They'll use their small state advantage to have a lock on the senate and prevent anything from being done. They could get enough votes to impeach any D president and kick them out of office over and over again until they win :https://www.yapms.com/app/?m=22uv

[Orser67]

In that case, I think you'd see the Republicans generally being in the minority, except in the Senate. But they could still win a presidential election if there were splits in the Democratic Party, if Democrats had an unpopular incumbent in office (possibly because of a bad economy or voter fatigue with the dominant party), or if Republicans managed to nominate an outstanding candidate (including if they had a popular incumbent seeking re-election). An example would be 1952, where Republicans broke Democrats' five election winning streak through the combination of an unpopular Democratic incumbent and a very strong nominee (Eisenhower). Another example would be 1912, where the dominant party lost in large part because of a split within the party.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Assuming trends continue and accepting this thread's hypothetical that the entire sunbelt won't [just] flip back (which is questionable but worth entertaining for the thread's sake), I'd expect them to nominate a Texan in the hopes that a home state boost might counteract trends there. I think the first couple of Democratic flips at the statewide level in GA is also something Republicans could hope to reverse in the short term with increased turnout as a result of backlash/panic in the local base (it's incredibly polarised there), and that they'd focus on targeting ME-AL, MN, NH and RI. A relatively secular, economically moderate candidate who was protectionist but civil in tone might be best placed to appeal to these states, and they'd also be able to reach out to ME-01, NV (not wholly sunbelt) and OR if things were going really well for them.

VA is also worth targeting if the Democratic part of the sunbelt is to become a lost cause, but I doubt a non-incumbent protectionist Republican could reach it. If they're desperate enough about winning the presidency, perhaps they could come to support DC statehood on condition that it takes in some MD/VA suburbs and exurbs to make those two states more competitive for them. In theory, they could also back statehood for places that elect politicians from parties which are affiliated with Republicans, but I suspect territories like PR would quickly swing Democratic at the federal level once granted that.

[YE]

I'm probably more harsh about it than past 2020 board mods but post this stuff on the Trends board.

[Person Man]

They are successful now because they can punch above their weight in populated areas in places they are well organized. That's not going to change.

[progressive85]

In the 80s and 90s South, there were often Republican pickups that later were reversed by short-term Democratic gains and then Republicans took them back again and they remained Republican.

So in Georgia and Texas, after the first Democratic statewide victories, we may see Republicans get back those offices when they have good years but in strong Democratic years, they become more entrenched as Democratic.

[Sumner 1868]

Republicans will probably start polling north of 70 percent of the white vote sometime in the 2030s, which presumably would flip much of New England. Permanent Democratic Majority it will be not.

[Roronoa D. Law]

Easy they will cheat. They will Purge voters for inactivity every 3rd year from a presidential election and strategically close down DMVs so that when it comes to let's say the 2020 election many voters will need to renew their voter registration but will have to wait long lines and drive long distances to get to a DMV. It is best that these states have their presidential primaries late in the calendar so many voters don't pay attention to being purged.

Now in states Democrats usually win but Republicans do better down-ballot they will need to pass Nebraska/Maine mode mostly likely in an unpopular Democratic president 2nd midterm. Now all they have to do is hope that the judges McConnel pushed through stay loyal and hope the Democrats don't pass any voter rights legislation (and knowing the Democrats they probably won't until it's too late).

[jaymichaud]

That's still slightly better than the 2016 EC results for the Democrats so maybe they won't turn into complete messes like they did

[Person Man]

Republicans will probably start polling north of 70 percent of the white vote sometime in the 2030s, which presumably would flip much of New England. Permanent Democratic Majority it will be not.

After what I've seen, I just think they will eventually go back to the Rovian model of going after socially conservative PoCs. Of course if they are forced to and start having to deliver on those promises and there's a backlash, I could totally see a lot of social issues becoming a matter of conscience on both sides. That could eventually get Republicans back into the Northeast.

[Non Swing Voter]

If that's the map and the assumption is that democrats will be favored in Texas, Georgia, and Arizona due to demographic changes, then that's really bleak for Republicans.

First of all, even if they won back Nevada, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Maine, and continued winning Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan, that wouldn't be enough electoral votes.  It would put them at 264.  Even if you add New Mexico, that would put them at 269.  Meaning they'd have to win a fairly blue state like Virginia or Colorado as well.

Second, under that scenario, it would be even more bleak after the next census, because other than Florida and maybe North Carolina, Democrats would be winning pretty much every state gaining electoral votes, while Republicans would be relying on lots of states set to lose votes.  So you could probably toss Colorado or Virginia in and Republicans would still not win.

They basically cease to be competitive in Presidential elections if they cede Texas.  Period.  If you just look at the ultra liberal states of CA + NY + IL + WA + HI + MA + MD + NJ + DC, when you add Texas to that, after 2020, the Democrats are clearly well over 200 electoral votes right there.

[SingingAnalyst]

At least in the short term, they would focus on declining areas with lots of older, white people: rural areas in ME, MN, NH, even VT. To the extent that they had success, it would be a complete reversal of fortune from the 1980s, when the GOP generally carried fast-growing areas (NH, the West, the Sunbelt, suburbs generally) while Dems were doing better in areas that were stable or declining (IA, PA, WV, poor rural areas, big cities).

This could be the map for 2024 or 2028:

Dem 331 (326 before 2020 reapportionment)
GOP 207 (212 before 2020 reapportionment)