The GOP has to expand the battleground in 2024.

[ProgressiveModerate]

The past few cycles, the Democrats have gotten more and more safe states in their column, with the 2020 election confirming VA and CO as part of the blue wall. Right now, that's ok for the GOP since the final few battleground states lean right, but 2024 might be the last time this "blue wall" is below 250 EVs, at which point the GOP would have to run on table on every tossup state. For the sake of this discussion, I'm considering the blue wall to be any state Biden won by greater than 10%, or 210 EVs. In comparison, there were only 125 EVs in states Trump won by 10%+.

Here's a map for reference:

https://www.yapms.com/app/?m=6n8t

If the GOP doesn't try to break into states that most would currently consider "Safe D", they might find themselves in a difficult position to win elections, especially if TX, which for reference voted about the same as GA did in 2016, ends up flipping and going the way of these other states. If it's a given TX is blue, under the current EV allocations, Republicans could run the table on every state Trump won in 2020 + MI/WI/PA/MN/ME/NH and NV and still lose. Another thing to consider is that most of the states where they have made significant gains these past few cycles have been losing EVs, so it's not like this problem will get better.

Trends are not finite, and both parties have to opportunity to change the course of trends in states that are seemingly trending in an unfavorable election, but the GOP needs to find some sort of way to start making cracks in this new blue wall before it gets too large.

[VAR]

IA and OH are also Safe R.

[ProgressiveModerate]

IA and OH are also Safe R.

They probably are safe R, but I think the difference between the GOP and Democrats is that Democrats have more EVs joining the “blue wall” while for the GOP, they’ve just been swapping the states that make up their red wall. OH and IA help but don’t make up for TX and GA by themselves. I think the GOP needs to get FL to a point where it’s pretty safe R if possible

[Person Man]

IA and OH are also Safe R.

You have to give them that. We will see if Nevada and Florida are more Republican yet in 2024. I think Corona has a lot to do with tourist areas trending R. Time will still tell if Minnesota,New Hampshire, Texas, Arizona, and Georgia are becoming more Democratic.

[Pollster]

This is a good visual representation of the problem the GOP fundamentally faces: the electoral strategy of "Trumpism" is to max out in shrinking areas while hemorrhaging support in growing areas. This is unsustainable for obvious reasons, and is likely to collapse all at once rather than slowly over time (the opposite is true of the Democrats' mirror image situation of gaining in growing areas/getting blown out in shrinking areas, which produces more gradual gains and losses).

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

They can't Klobuchar, Kaine, Stabenow, Manchin, Tester, Casey, Brown, Stabenow, Rosen and Sinema are all up for reelection and have won landslides in 2018, including Baldwin

[Nyvin]

What really sucks is that the Democrats "already" have Republicans beat in sheer number of supporters and Republicans have no real chance at winning the popular vote...it's just that by coincidence the Electoral College keeps them just competitive enough to where it's possible for them to still win.

Once Texas trends D enough it's pretty much game over for Republicans, but until then they're still in the running.  Even with something like a 5% popular vote loss they can still win (which is horrible).

[ProgressiveModerate]

What really sucks is that the Democrats "already" have Republicans beat in sheer number of supporters and Republicans have no real chance at winning the popular vote...it's just that by coincidence the Electoral College keeps them just competitive enough to where it's possible for them to still win.

Once Texas trends D enough it's pretty much game over for Republicans, but until then they're still in the running.  Even with something like a 5% popular vote loss they can still win (which is horrible).

Also, one thing that should concern  the GOP is that they lost a trifecta in the 2020 election despite GOP turnout being like 90%+ or something crazy like that, whereas Democratic turnout was only in the mid-60s. It just seems like the line they need to walk gets thinner and thinner and they're only staying viable through a gerrymandered House, a Senate which over-represents smaller states, and an electoral college that happens to benefit them at this moment. The electoral college, however, can have pretty significant swings in who it favors in just a cycle or two, and House gerrymanders can only go so far, and often fail.

The fact is there are just more registered Ds than Rs, which means Republicans need to get Republican turnout to pretty extreme levels or win Independents, or some combination of both. Trump was able to get very high R turnout but couldn't win Independents, while many argue that a more establishment canidate may be able to win over more Independent voters but will struggle to get base turnout. I'm curious to see if their is a happy medium to this problem, and if so, how the GOP deals with it.

[pbrower2a]

The Republican Party needs to abandon its mirror-image Marxism (which supports bureaucrat6ized, vertically-integrated, near-monopoly capitalism in which economic elites have all power and everyone else suffers) for something with a broader appeal. Mirror-image Marxism, basically a stereotype of capitalism as Marxists  in which "free enterprise" means that the enterprise-owners and their managers are free to do whatever they wish to employees and customers, has little potential of appeal except to racists and religious bigots intent on fending off challenges of people dissimilar to them with the aid of extant elites.

It also must clean off the stench of its recent support for Donald Trump, which means that it needs a new coalition of voters and very new politicians exempt from connections to him and to related organizations. Whatever Party has the political center almost invariably wins the election, which explains Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. Obama doesn't have many problems attached.

 

[Motorcity]

They can't Klobuchar, Kaine, Stabenow, Manchin, Tester, Casey, Brown, Stabenow, Rosen and Sinema are all up for reelection and have won landslides in 2018, including Baldwin

The Democrats did a really good job recruiting in 2006 that almost 20 years later they can still count on them

[Alcibiades]

This is something I’ve noticed before. Even if you add IA and OH to the Safe GOP column, the Red Wall still falls far short of the Blue Wall, at 149 EVs vs 210 EVs. This is before you consider that GA is likely to move into at least the likely D column in the near future, and MN looks just as stubbornly out of reach for the GOP as ever. Securing FL as safe R would go a long way to helping the GOP in the electoral college, but I think it will remain competitive enough to warrant some investment from both sides. This election has perhaps caused a re-evaluation of how fast TX is trending D, and the results among Hispanics are very good news for the GOP, but it will be more competitive in the future, and losing it would spell disaster for the Republicans.

So, basically, the GOP are left in a position where they have far less margin for error than the Dems do in the electoral college, and have to almost run the table on swing states. As for expanding the map, the only obvious state I can see which is part of the OP’s Blue Wall which could enter battleground map is NM. I don’t buy the likes of Delaware and Rhode Island becoming competitive any time soon, and even then it’s only a handful of EVs.

This is by no means to suggest that the White House is out of reach for the Republicans in the short term, but simply that the Dems can afford to run far worse/unluckier campaigns than the GOP can and still win.

[Del Tachi]

What really sucks is that the Democrats "already" have Republicans beat in sheer number of supporters and Republicans have no real chance at winning the popular vote...it's just that by coincidence the Electoral College keeps them just competitive enough to where it's possible for them to still win.

Once Texas trends D enough it's pretty much game over for Republicans, but until then they're still in the running.  Even with something like a 5% popular vote loss they can still win (which is horrible).

Also, one thing that should concern  the GOP is that they lost a trifecta in the 2020 election despite GOP turnout being like 90%+ or something crazy like that, whereas Democratic turnout was only in the mid-60s. It just seems like the line they need to walk gets thinner and thinner and they're only staying viable through a gerrymandered House, a Senate which over-represents smaller states, and an electoral college that happens to benefit them at this moment. The electoral college, however, can have pretty significant swings in who it favors in just a cycle or two, and House gerrymanders can only go so far, and often fail.

The fact is there are just more registered Ds than Rs, which means Republicans need to get Republican turnout to pretty extreme levels or win Independents, or some combination of both. Trump was able to get very high R turnout but couldn't win Independents, while many argue that a more establishment canidate may be able to win over more Independent voters but will struggle to get base turnout. I'm curious to see if their is a happy medium to this problem, and if so, how the GOP deals with it.

Cite?

[Agonized-Statism]

All roads lead to the 2013 RNC election report autopsy.

[Alcibiades]

All roads lead to the 2013 RNC election report autopsy.

Yep. Trumpism has been like a sugar rush - it delivered short term success, but ultimately these gains were in areas of the country losing population, at the expense of big losses in areas on the upswing. The GOP has to appeal to diverse and upwardly mobile constituencies if it wants to have long term success. I think its best bet would be to keep some Trumpist populist economic stances (and actually back up the rhetoric with policy), but replace the language of anger with that of optimism (as the autopsy suggested). I wouldn’t hold my breath on that actually happening, though.

[Oregon Eagle Politics]

IA and OH are also Safe R.

You have to give them that. We will see if Nevada and Florida are more Republican yet in 2024. I think Corona has a lot to do with tourist areas trending R. Time will still tell if Minnesota,New Hampshire, Texas, Arizona, and Georgia are becoming more Democratic.

Not true. Some areas like NW Michigan or Colorado trended strongly D, while others trended R.

[Red Wall]

There are 3 Bush 2x, Obama 2x, Hillary, Biden states: Colorado, Virginia and Nevada. They will have 29 EVs in 2024 but Nevada (6) is a toss-up so we can say dems converted 23 Republican/swing (21 last time they voted R) EVs into safe dem EVs.

There are also 3 Obama 2x, Trump 2x states: Iowa, Ohio and Florida. Florida alone will have more EVs (31) than the trio above but although Dems have some problems in winning there I still view it as a tilt R state. However Ohio and Iowa are clearly gone and they will also combine for the same 23 EVs of Virginia and Colorado in 2024. That basically means each party has turned the same amount of competitive EVs into safe over the past few cycles.

I'd argue the battleground has already been expanded on both sides. For Rs the expansion was Michigan and Pennsylvania, lean D states that have voted right of the nation (not including Wisconsin cause it was a battleground under Bush too). Meanwhile dems expanded it with Arizona and Georgia. Somehwat with North Carolina but their only win is less recent compared to these two.

[Roronoa D. Law]

As it stands right now there are 6 states coming out of 2020 that are up in the air in 2024 they are AZ/GA/MI/NC/PA/WI. Meaning that MN/NV/NH/NE-02 are leaning Democratic and FL/TX/ME-02 are leaning Republican in a neutral environment. If either party wins any leaning states then they have likely already won the election.

Assuming PR is not a state and the 2020 census yields what we all expect. That gives Democrats 230 EV, Republicans 220 EV, and 88 EV up for grabs. While Republicans are at a deficit they are not completed out of contention. While they lost 5/6 last year they won all 6 in 2016.     

[ProgressiveModerate]

What really sucks is that the Democrats "already" have Republicans beat in sheer number of supporters and Republicans have no real chance at winning the popular vote...it's just that by coincidence the Electoral College keeps them just competitive enough to where it's possible for them to still win.

Once Texas trends D enough it's pretty much game over for Republicans, but until then they're still in the running.  Even with something like a 5% popular vote loss they can still win (which is horrible).

Also, one thing that should concern  the GOP is that they lost a trifecta in the 2020 election despite GOP turnout being like 90%+ or something crazy like that, whereas Democratic turnout was only in the mid-60s. It just seems like the line they need to walk gets thinner and thinner and they're only staying viable through a gerrymandered House, a Senate which over-represents smaller states, and an electoral college that happens to benefit them at this moment. The electoral college, however, can have pretty significant swings in who it favors in just a cycle or two, and House gerrymanders can only go so far, and often fail.

The fact is there are just more registered Ds than Rs, which means Republicans need to get Republican turnout to pretty extreme levels or win Independents, or some combination of both. Trump was able to get very high R turnout but couldn't win Independents, while many argue that a more establishment canidate may be able to win over more Independent voters but will struggle to get base turnout. I'm curious to see if their is a happy medium to this problem, and if so, how the GOP deals with it.

Cite?

The numbers are vague because their estimates and not exact amounts, but if you look at exit polls, it's about 36% of people who voted in 2020 that were registered Democrats and about 36% were registered Republican., or about 57 million each. However, nationally, party registration estimates indicates that there are about 63 million Republicans or so and 92 million Democrats. You can get these numbers by looking at states that have the party registration breakdown (about 30 states) and then estimate the rest using a correlation from the most recent election results, most of these states are smaller states anyways so there is more room for error. These numbers put Republicans at exactly 90% turnout while Democrats only at 62%. Again, these calculations are estimates, and there are many places where there is a MOE, but it can be said with relative certainty that Republicans had a higher turnout rate than Democrats in the 2020 election; it could be 86% vs 68% or 93% vs 58%, there is some room for error, but it can safely be assumed it was at least 10-15% higher.

Some people may argue "muh ancestral Democrats", but pretty much all the data we have indicates that Biden won about the same % of Republicans as Trump won of Democrats; ancestral Ds and suburbanites cancelled out.

[ProgressiveModerate]

As it stands right now there are 6 states coming out of 2020 that are up in the air in 2024 they are AZ/GA/MI/NC/PA/WI. Meaning that MN/NV/NH/NE-02 are leaning Democratic and FL/TX/ME-02 are leaning Republican in a neutral environment. If either party wins any leaning states then they have likely already won the election.

Assuming PR is not a state and the 2020 census yields what we all expect. That gives Democrats 230 EV, Republicans 220 EV, and 88 EV up for grabs. While Republicans are at a deficit they are not completed out of contention. While they lost 5/6 last year they won all 6 in 2016.     

I agree that Republicans and Democrats have about an equal of number of EVs when you include Safe + Leaning EVs, but Democrats objectively have more safe EVs any way you cut the pie. A Democratic TX is more plausible than say a red IL, DE, or RI (all of which have fewer EVs anyways), which is the real problem for Republicans because their path is much more fragile.

[Del Tachi]

Also, the whole premise of this thread is wrong.  It is actually Democrats who need to expand their map, since the median electoral vote votes to the right of the nation overall.  The GOP's current coalition punches far above its weight.

As a gut check, ask yourself this simple question:  since 2008, which states have Democrats brought into competition?  GA and AZ?  Those gains are evened-out by GOP gains in IA and OH. 

[Alcibiades]

Also, the whole premise of this thread is wrong.  It is actually Democrats who need to expand their map, since the median electoral vote votes to the right of the nation overall.  The GOP's current coalition punches far above its weight.

As a gut check, ask yourself this simple question:  since 2008, which states have Democrats brought into competition?  GA and AZ?  Those gains are evened-out by GOP gains in IA and OH. 

If you’re including IA and OH for the GOP, then you have to add CO and VA to the Dems’ list. The former two were tossups, not safe/likely D, in the early 2000s.

[kwabbit]

The idea of a 'blue wall' or a 'red wall' is such a tired and pointless concept. We are aware of each state and its partisan lean, and we don't need to express what is already a pretty simple concept with such a reductive theory.

If some states exit the blue wall and some states join the blue wall, often unexpectedly, then there isn't a blue wall. It's not that Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania were part of the blue wall in 2012 then left it in 2016, and then rejoined it in 2020, there was just never a blue wall in the first place. There are states we can deem 'Safe', as their partisan lean renders them as very likely to go for one party even in an unfriendly national landslide, but states like Nevada, Minnesota, Texas, Florida and other states that have been stubbornly for one party are not 'Safe'. They are not part of a Red Wall or a Blue Wall. The entire concept of 'Walls' just exists so supporters of either party can ignore the uncertainty that comes with electoral politics. It's easier for a Red Avatar to say 'Minnesota is part of the Blue Wall' than it is for them to live with the uncertainty that comes with 'Minnesota has a 90% Chance of Going Dem'. The same for Blue Avatars and states like OH.

[Del Tachi]

Also, the whole premise of this thread is wrong.  It is actually Democrats who need to expand their map, since the median electoral vote votes to the right of the nation overall.  The GOP's current coalition punches far above its weight.

As a gut check, ask yourself this simple question:  since 2008, which states have Democrats brought into competition?  GA and AZ?  Those gains are evened-out by GOP gains in IA and OH. 

If you’re including IA and OH for the GOP, then you have to add CO and VA to the Dems’ list. The former two were tossups, not safe/likely D, in the early 2000s.

Obama won VA and CO in 2008, and neither state has been truly competitive since 2012.  VA and NC may have given the GOP headaches in 2009-16, but their road to 270 doesn't require them anymore.  They've traded VA and CO for IA and OH, which the Dems themselves traded for AZ and GA.

It's all just one, constant equilibrium-inducing dance.     

[ProgressiveModerate]

Also, the whole premise of this thread is wrong.  It is actually Democrats who need to expand their map, since the median electoral vote votes to the right of the nation overall.  The GOP's current coalition punches far above its weight.

As a gut check, ask yourself this simple question:  since 2008, which states have Democrats brought into competition?  GA and AZ?  Those gains are evened-out by GOP gains in IA and OH.  

Yes, the tipping point at this moment is to the right of the country, but the EC advantage tends to swing back and forth and at this point, and Democrats have generally been favored to win the NPV on the Presidential level barring some very favorable circumstances to Republicans. Only winning the PV once in the last 8 elections isn't a coincidence or getting unlucky

In 2000, this was the electoral map:



2020:



I do acknowledge 2020 was a slightly better year for Democrats nationally than 2000, but both were close elections where the tipping point state was decided by less than 1%. I chose 2000 because it was really the start of the current alignment of blue coasts and red center.

Since 2000, the GOP has:
-Locked down several states in the South like TN and AR
-Made OH/IA pretty reliably R
-Moved MI/WI/PA slightly rightwards, though the big 3 were competative in the early 2000s

Since 2000, Democrats have:
-Made VA and CO go from red to blue states
-Brough NV and AZ into true contention
-Made the North East (ME, NH), Lean D, and locked down states like NJ and CT
-WA went from Lean D to safe D, OR went from tossup to safe D
-Getting TX closer
-Made NC and GA competative

The issue is that all the GOP has done is made some once competative states R leaning or locked down R leaning states, most of which have small populations and therefore few EVS.

Democrats on the other hand have actually attacked the "red wall", reliably winning once red states like VA and CO and actually brining GA/NC/TX/AZ into play.

Republicans have been gaining in some areas, but since 2000, I can't think of any safe D states the GOP has actually been able to make a serious play in; all their gains have been in already competative states. Now, Democrats have more safe D EVs than Republicans, and Republicans are relying on the fact that TX and FL are Republican leaning states, but if either one falls, they have nowhere to turn, whereas at least for Democrats, if the rust belt starts to fail, they can turn to TX or FL. Think about it; if Democrats win TX, the GOP could win every Trump state plus MI, WI, PA, ME, NH, MN, and NV and would still lose. This is all about building the groundwork for their future winning map

[Vosem]

This feels basically false, right? The GOP came within 0.63% of winning a presidential election while losing the popular vote by 5 points, and ran generally ahead of their presidential nominee down-ballot (such that the D+3 result in the House "translates" to a comfortable win in the Electoral College). We're at the point where a result like D+1 nationally not only translates to a clear Republican victory for the Presidency, but a filibuster-proof Senate majority if sustained (or improved upon) across three cycles. (Combined with control of the judiciary for the foreseeable future: as the parties are currently constituted, the Republican Party is probably closer than the Democratic Party to being a "natural party of government" under the current alignment.)

I don't know what the effect of the generation gap is going to be; prior to Trump it didn't seem all that serious (and the GOP did fairly well among young voters in 2014, holding their defeat to single-digits), but it does seem more existential now, as the gap has gotten wider. (We'll see if the sky-high youth margins can be maintained under a Biden Administration; Obama was not able to do so towards the end of his term.) Even so, the past cycle seems to pretty clearly demonstrate that this isn't an immediate threat, and while there's no rule that people get more conservative with age, this does seem to have happened to the 2008-era Obama Generation. (And Biden actually did fairly well with the oldest voters, right? Trump's top demographic was people aged 55-65, or thereabouts. Voters dying on the GOP isn't likely to be a serious problem for them in 2024.)