When will the GOP win again?

[Chips]

2024 is winnable assuming a good Republican runs and Biden is not the nominee. 2028 is a more reasonable assumption though. 2032 if Harris wins in 2024 and is popular enough to win in 2028 but I can't see it being later than 2032. I went with 2028.

[Chips]

I will say this. For the GOP to win again they will have to nominate a populist but not an overly crazy one like Trump was. If they do that, They could put back together the 2016 map and also have a chance to put states like Nevada, New Mexico and Minnesota in play.

[Heebie Jeebie]

The problem for Republicans is Texas.  Democrats were rightfully disappointed that Texas wasn't closer this year, but zoom out a little and the trend lines are still looking good!  In 2012, Romney won by 16%.  In 2016, Trump won by 9%.  This year, it's going to be around 6%, with unprecedented turnout.  If Biden is a successful president, and Texas continues to urbanize, and turnout returns to the mean, Texas will go blue--by 2024 possibly, but certainly by 2028.  Once that happens, how do Republicans win the electoral college?

[Hope For A New Era]

I'm a bit too fond of these cycle theories.

When 2020 looked like 1980, I would have said 2032, but now 2020 seems to be looking a lot more like 1896 than 1980. So...2036?

[Roll Roons]

The problem for Republicans is Texas.  Democrats were rightfully disappointed that Texas wasn't closer this year, but zoom out a little and the trend lines are still looking good!  In 2012, Romney won by 16%.  In 2016, Trump won by 9%.  This year, it's going to be around 6%, with unprecedented turnout.  If Biden is a successful president, and Texas continues to urbanize, and turnout returns to the mean, Texas will go blue--by 2024 possibly, but certainly by 2028.  Once that happens, how do Republicans win the electoral college?

Republicans need to nominate someone who threads the needle between firing up the Trumpy base and not alienating the suburbs. I'm sure there's someone out there who can do it, but the person who best fits this description was pre-Bridgegate Chris Christie, and he's obviously no longer viable.

They should also hope that Democrats nominate someone unpalatable, which is definitely not out of the question. Given how close the election ended up being in the critical states, it's possible that Biden was the only candidate who could have won this year.

[Heebie Jeebie]

The problem for Republicans is Texas.  Democrats were rightfully disappointed that Texas wasn't closer this year, but zoom out a little and the trend lines are still looking good!  In 2012, Romney won by 16%.  In 2016, Trump won by 9%.  This year, it's going to be around 6%, with unprecedented turnout.  If Biden is a successful president, and Texas continues to urbanize, and turnout returns to the mean, Texas will go blue--by 2024 possibly, but certainly by 2028.  Once that happens, how do Republicans win the electoral college?

Republicans need to nominate someone who threads the needle between firing up the Trumpy base and not alienating the suburbs. I'm sure there's someone out there who can do it, but the person who best fits this description was pre-Bridgegate Chris Christie.

They should also hope that Democrats nominate someone unpalatable, which is definitely not out of the question. Given how close the election ended up being in the critical states, it's possible that Biden was the only candidate who could have won this year.

All you say is true, but it's hard to see how either of these things actually happens.  For obvious reasons, I think Trump had unique ability to fire up the Trumpy base that we're not likely to see imitated for a long time to come.  He had been a prominent cultural and media figure for decades before entering politics, with a deeply ingrained (and false) image as a genius businessman and powerful leader.  Who's out there who could pull that off again?  As for the Democrats, Harris will obviously be the nominee after Biden, and given four (or maybe eight) years as a competent VP she'll be rightly seen as a standard, palatable candidate perfectly acceptable (if not preferable) to a majority of voters.

[Medal506]

2024 is winnable assuming a good Republican runs and Biden is not the nominee. 2028 is a more reasonable assumption though. 2032 if Harris wins in 2024 and is popular enough to win in 2028 but I can't see it being later than 2032. I went with 2028.

I agree with this statement. I think Biden is a lot more electable than people give him credit. The only person I can see beating Biden is probably Ron DeSantis.

However, if its Kamala Harris, I think Republicans will win.

[Medal506]

I will say this. For the GOP to win again they will have to nominate a populist but not an overly crazy one like Trump was. If they do that, They could put back together the 2016 map and also have a chance to put states like Nevada, New Mexico and Minnesota in play.

They need to nominate Ron DeSantis or Josh Hawley. Josh Hawley is a fake populist though sadly.

[Ferguson97]

2032.

Harris vs. Pence in 2024 is basically inevitable. Harris will defeat him by similar margins as Biden, and then narrowly win re-election in 2028. Some currently unknown Republican wins 2032 in an Obama-2012 level of victory.

[RINO Tom]

I'm a bit too fond of these cycle theories.

When 2020 looked like 1980, I would have said 2032, but now 2020 seems to be looking a lot more like 1896 than 1980. So...2036?

You think the GOP is going to lose one fewer election in a row than it did after literally being blamed for the Great Depression?

[Hope For A New Era]

I'm a bit too fond of these cycle theories.

When 2020 looked like 1980, I would have said 2032, but now 2020 seems to be looking a lot more like 1896 than 1980. So...2036?

You think the GOP is going to lose one fewer election in a row than it did after literally being blamed for the Great Depression?

When you take into account the fact that Democrats have won the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 elections, and that Texas is likely to flip during this decade and make the EC map extremely favorable to Democrats, yes.

Maybe if there's a D EV win/PV loss, there will finally be bipartisan support for abolishing the Electoral College. And the Democrats can unilaterally disarm themselves. Again.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I'm a bit too fond of these cycle theories.

When 2020 looked like 1980, I would have said 2032, but now 2020 seems to be looking a lot more like 1896 than 1980. So...2036?

You think the GOP is going to lose one fewer election in a row than it did after literally being blamed for the Great Depression?

When you take into account the fact that Democrats have won the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 elections, and that Texas is likely to flip during this decade and make the EC map extremely favorable to Democrats, yes.

Maybe if there's a D EV win/PV loss, there will finally be bipartisan support for abolishing the Electoral College. And the Democrats can unilaterally disarm themselves. Again.

The fastest growing demographic in the nation and in Texas is trending Republican. Are Democrats likely to win statewide in Texas once this decade? Sure, I'll make that bet given the sheer number of statewide races taking place within the next 10 years. It is likely to remain a Republican-leaning state for some time, though, and I don't think it'll flip in a presidential election until Democrats get a significantly better national environment than 2020's (which itself is unlikely until the next GOP administration).

[Hope For A New Era]

I'm a bit too fond of these cycle theories.

When 2020 looked like 1980, I would have said 2032, but now 2020 seems to be looking a lot more like 1896 than 1980. So...2036?

You think the GOP is going to lose one fewer election in a row than it did after literally being blamed for the Great Depression?

When you take into account the fact that Democrats have won the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 elections, and that Texas is likely to flip during this decade and make the EC map extremely favorable to Democrats, yes.

Maybe if there's a D EV win/PV loss, there will finally be bipartisan support for abolishing the Electoral College. And the Democrats can unilaterally disarm themselves. Again.

The fastest growing demographic in the nation and in Texas is trending Republican. Are Democrats likely to win statewide in Texas once this decade? Sure, I'll make that bet given the sheer number of statewide races taking place within the next 10 years. It is likely to remain a Republican-leaning state for some time, though, and I don't think it'll flip in a presidential election until Democrats get a significantly better national environment than 2020's (which itself is unlikely until the next GOP administration).

We don't know if the Hispanic R vote this year is a trend or a one-time event.

Even if it is a trend, they're still a D-leaning demographic, just less so, and Texas suburbs are still growing and Demifying at an extreme rate.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I'm a bit too fond of these cycle theories.

When 2020 looked like 1980, I would have said 2032, but now 2020 seems to be looking a lot more like 1896 than 1980. So...2036?

You think the GOP is going to lose one fewer election in a row than it did after literally being blamed for the Great Depression?

When you take into account the fact that Democrats have won the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 elections, and that Texas is likely to flip during this decade and make the EC map extremely favorable to Democrats, yes.

Maybe if there's a D EV win/PV loss, there will finally be bipartisan support for abolishing the Electoral College. And the Democrats can unilaterally disarm themselves. Again.

The fastest growing demographic in the nation and in Texas is trending Republican. Are Democrats likely to win statewide in Texas once this decade? Sure, I'll make that bet given the sheer number of statewide races taking place within the next 10 years. It is likely to remain a Republican-leaning state for some time, though, and I don't think it'll flip in a presidential election until Democrats get a significantly better national environment than 2020's (which itself is unlikely until the next GOP administration).

We don't know if the Hispanic R vote this year is a trend or a one-time event.

Even if it is a trend, they're still a D-leaning demographic, just less so, and Texas suburbs are still growing and Demifying at an extreme rate.

We don't, but if it looks like a trend, shouldn't we assume it's more likely than not to be one? It could continue to the point where they became an R-leaning demographic (although I'm not saying this is likely) and it would certainly make Texas' leftwards shift much slower.

[dw93]

After seeing the results of this election as early as 2024 (depending on who they nominate) but no later than 2032. 2024 or 2028 seem the most likely at this point.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I'm a bit too fond of these cycle theories.

When 2020 looked like 1980, I would have said 2032, but now 2020 seems to be looking a lot more like 1896 than 1980. So...2036?

Nah it looks more like 1892 than 1896

[Hope For A New Era]

I'm a bit too fond of these cycle theories.

When 2020 looked like 1980, I would have said 2032, but now 2020 seems to be looking a lot more like 1896 than 1980. So...2036?

Nah it looks more like 1892 than 1896

Likable, friendly, and "safe" establishment candidate running "front porch campaign" defeats fiery populist who drives massive rural support. There is major change in coalitions. Turnout is extremely high. Popular vote margin is a bit over 4 points.

Pretty clearly 1896.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I'm a bit too fond of these cycle theories.

When 2020 looked like 1980, I would have said 2032, but now 2020 seems to be looking a lot more like 1896 than 1980. So...2036?

Nah it looks more like 1892 than 1896

Likable, friendly, and "safe" establishment candidate running "front porch campaign" defeats fiery populist who drives massive rural support. There is major change in coalitions. Turnout is extremely high. Popular vote margin is a bit over 4 points.

Pretty clearly 1896.

Ehh McKinley coalition didn’t change much from previous republican era coalition, he just refreshed it for a new generation.

The 1892 comparison works as democrats who had spent the 1880s making gains in republican urban areas and the demographic changes throughout the decade seemed to favor the democrats as well but in 1888 the democrats were defeated in a surprise defeat but in 1892 it looked liked democrats could finally get their chance to realign the electorate but a closer than expected victory exposed vulnerabilities.

Then in 1896 republicans were able to finally make break through with immigrant groups , plus the populist left took over the party from the Bourbon(today “neoliberal” wing) of the party but were unable to make gains with industrial workers while seeing their gains in the cities evaporate and led to a domiant republican era .

Similarly today the more “neoliberal wing” of the party seems in control but it’s pretty clear that a huge part of their base is desperate to change it and 2024 could be your 1896 where a left wing populist grabs control of the Democrats and it results in them unable to make any gains with working class voters but results them in collapsing in trending suburban areas leading to a republican led realignment.



Also turnout in 1892 was insanely high too

[Hope For A New Era]

I'm a bit too fond of these cycle theories.

When 2020 looked like 1980, I would have said 2032, but now 2020 seems to be looking a lot more like 1896 than 1980. So...2036?

Nah it looks more like 1892 than 1896

Likable, friendly, and "safe" establishment candidate running "front porch campaign" defeats fiery populist who drives massive rural support. There is major change in coalitions. Turnout is extremely high. Popular vote margin is a bit over 4 points.

Pretty clearly 1896.

Ehh McKinley coalition didn’t change much from previous republican era coalition, he just refreshed it for a new generation.

The 1892 comparison works as democrats who had spent the 1880s making gains in republican urban areas and the demographic changes throughout the decade seemed to favor the democrats as well but in 1888 the democrats were defeated in a surprise defeat but in 1892 it looked liked democrats could finally get their chance to realign the electorate but a closer than expected victory exposed vulnerabilities.

Then in 1896 republicans were able to finally make break through with immigrant groups , plus the populist left took over the party from the Bourbon(today “neoliberal” wing) of the party but were unable to make gains with industrial workers while seeing their gains in the cities evaporate and led to a domiant republican era .

Similarly today the more “neoliberal wing” of the party seems in control but it’s pretty clear that a huge part of their base is desperate to change it and 2024 could be your 1896 where a left wing populist grabs control of the Democrats and it results in them unable to make any gains with working class voters but results them in collapsing in trending suburban areas leading to a republican led realignment.



Also turnout in 1892 was insanely high too

Good points. I guess we'll find out which it is in 2024.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I'm a bit too fond of these cycle theories.

When 2020 looked like 1980, I would have said 2032, but now 2020 seems to be looking a lot more like 1896 than 1980. So...2036?

Nah it looks more like 1892 than 1896

Likable, friendly, and "safe" establishment candidate running "front porch campaign" defeats fiery populist who drives massive rural support. There is major change in coalitions. Turnout is extremely high. Popular vote margin is a bit over 4 points.

Pretty clearly 1896.

Ehh McKinley coalition didn’t change much from previous republican era coalition, he just refreshed it for a new generation.

The 1892 comparison works as democrats who had spent the 1880s making gains in republican urban areas and the demographic changes throughout the decade seemed to favor the democrats as well but in 1888 the democrats were defeated in a surprise defeat but in 1892 it looked liked democrats could finally get their chance to realign the electorate but a closer than expected victory exposed vulnerabilities.

Then in 1896 republicans were able to finally make break through with immigrant groups , plus the populist left took over the party from the Bourbon(today “neoliberal” wing) of the party but were unable to make gains with industrial workers while seeing their gains in the cities evaporate and led to a domiant republican era .

Similarly today the more “neoliberal wing” of the party seems in control but it’s pretty clear that a huge part of their base is desperate to change it and 2024 could be your 1896 where a left wing populist grabs control of the Democrats and it results in them unable to make any gains with working class voters but results them in collapsing in trending suburban areas leading to a republican led realignment.



Also turnout in 1892 was insanely high too

Good points. I guess we'll find out which it is in 2024.

Thanks, of course though it could turn out that neither 2020 or 2024 where 1896 in which case we would have to start thinking of 2008 or 2016 being the realigner

[DC Al Fine]

I'm a bit too fond of these cycle theories.

When 2020 looked like 1980, I would have said 2032, but now 2020 seems to be looking a lot more like 1896 than 1980. So...2036?

You think the GOP is going to lose one fewer election in a row than it did after literally being blamed for the Great Depression?

When you take into account the fact that Democrats have won the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 elections, and that Texas is likely to flip during this decade and make the EC map extremely favorable to Democrats, yes.

Maybe if there's a D EV win/PV loss, there will finally be bipartisan support for abolishing the Electoral College. And the Democrats can unilaterally disarm themselves. Again.

The fastest growing demographic in the nation and in Texas is trending Republican. Are Democrats likely to win statewide in Texas once this decade? Sure, I'll make that bet given the sheer number of statewide races taking place within the next 10 years. It is likely to remain a Republican-leaning state for some time, though, and I don't think it'll flip in a presidential election until Democrats get a significantly better national environment than 2020's (which itself is unlikely until the next GOP administration).

We don't know if the Hispanic R vote this year is a trend or a one-time event.

Even if it is a trend, they're still a D-leaning demographic, just less so, and Texas suburbs are still growing and Demifying at an extreme rate.

We don't, but if it looks like a trend, shouldn't we assume it's more likely than not to be one? It could continue to the point where they became an R-leaning demographic (although I'm not saying this is likely) and it would certainly make Texas' leftwards shift much slower.

And the thing is, Hispanics (and Blacks for that matter), don't even have to become R leaning groups in order to throw off "Emerging Democratic Majority" predictions. Democratic coalitions in most states are still dependent on running up the score with non-whites, so the GOP just needs to ensure those groups are less overwhelmingly Democratic. Hispanics being a 60/40 group instead of 70/30 or Blacks being an 80/20 group instead of 95-5 would make a huge impact.

[Hope For A New Era]

I'm a bit too fond of these cycle theories.

When 2020 looked like 1980, I would have said 2032, but now 2020 seems to be looking a lot more like 1896 than 1980. So...2036?

Nah it looks more like 1892 than 1896

Likable, friendly, and "safe" establishment candidate running "front porch campaign" defeats fiery populist who drives massive rural support. There is major change in coalitions. Turnout is extremely high. Popular vote margin is a bit over 4 points.

Pretty clearly 1896.

Ehh McKinley coalition didn’t change much from previous republican era coalition, he just refreshed it for a new generation.

The 1892 comparison works as democrats who had spent the 1880s making gains in republican urban areas and the demographic changes throughout the decade seemed to favor the democrats as well but in 1888 the democrats were defeated in a surprise defeat but in 1892 it looked liked democrats could finally get their chance to realign the electorate but a closer than expected victory exposed vulnerabilities.

Then in 1896 republicans were able to finally make break through with immigrant groups , plus the populist left took over the party from the Bourbon(today “neoliberal” wing) of the party but were unable to make gains with industrial workers while seeing their gains in the cities evaporate and led to a domiant republican era .

Similarly today the more “neoliberal wing” of the party seems in control but it’s pretty clear that a huge part of their base is desperate to change it and 2024 could be your 1896 where a left wing populist grabs control of the Democrats and it results in them unable to make any gains with working class voters but results them in collapsing in trending suburban areas leading to a republican led realignment.



Also turnout in 1892 was insanely high too

Good points. I guess we'll find out which it is in 2024.

Thanks, of course though it could turn out that neither 2020 or 2024 where 1896 in which case we would have to start thinking of 2008 or 2016 being the realigner

Another thing that has just occurred to me - just as the two parties split into conservatives and progressives in the 1890s, we are now seeing both parties split into populists and "the establishment." I imagine at some point in the not-too-distant future we may start seeing populists in both parties working with each other more than with their respective party establishments.

One thing that comes to mind is the "move federal things out of Washington" idea. Hawley introduced a bill to that effect in 2019, and it's something that I can see people like AOC getting behind as well.

[Suburbia]

2028

2024 is too early. Trump still has his stain on the GOP

[RINO Tom]

Also, asking, "When will the GOP win again?" is an entirely different question than asking, "When will the current GOP coalition next put a Republican President in the White House?"  I am simply very skeptical that the GOP will continue to bleed supporters that should be open to a center-right party (e.g., high income voters, White voters, suburban voters, etc.) to a point where they are losing FOUR elections in a row.  Even if you can't imagine the GOP consciously making some change, that amount of time will displace a LOT of the Republican Party's current voting base, and parties don't just wither into minority status forever; they reinvent themselves.

[vileplume]

2032.

Harris vs. Pence in 2024 is basically inevitable. Harris will defeat him by similar margins as Biden, and then narrowly win re-election in 2028. Some currently unknown Republican wins 2032 in an Obama-2012 level of victory.

I'd be quite surprised if the GOP nominated Pence as the one good thing about the Trump years is the GOP has seemed to shift away from bible bashing. IMO the GOP base is much more likely to go for someone in the Trumpian 'America First' mould than it is to go for a hard-line religious figure. On top of this Pence is nowhere near charismatic enough to be able to dominate a Republican primary, I reckon rather bland characters like Pence will flame out relatively early.

Also whilst I do think Biden would be likely to win re-election in 2024 should he run again, I do think there's a significant chance Harris could lose (the exact chance depends on exactly who she's up against) as I'm really not sure that she'd be able to pull together the electoral coalition which allowed Biden to regain the rust belt.