Possible Realignments

[หมูเด้ง]

We all talk about new parties, third parties, and transitioning to a one party state. To the vast majority of us here, its very to difficult to imagine more than a slight chance of a ephemeral scenario of anything like this(like in 1992) in our lifetimes.

However, I think, 50/50 shot in the next 20 years and definitely in the next 40, a chance for a depolarization and a realignment. I would think that this would  mean that one party wins a large trifecta (400+EVS/10%+ in the presidency and AT LEAST 55-60% of the seats in both chambers) and gets their trifecta through a "hattrick" of elections (perhaps from a first election to at least a six years' itch) and maybe holds on to some federal control through at least that presidential election on year 8. After this happening, I see the other party relying on different voters, regions, and tactics to rebalance the power and perhaps the majority party becomes even more increasingly reliant of their voters.

What this usually entails is that there is a substantial shift in policy, coalitions, platforms, and the "Overton Window".

For example, 1980 is considered a realignment because it shifted policy towards an austere and neo-liberal mindset. Top tax rates would be cut in half (and income taxes were almost flat for a little while), there would be no one anti-poverty measures, overt racial issues were abandoned for more indirect racial issues or religious issues. The debate around the role of the government became more about determining how it would determine who could participate in society rather than its direct role in the economy. Democrats would steadily gain more middle class and upper middle class voters and Republicans would gain more southern, rural, and poor white voters. The Cold War consensus would be reinforced but changed as the enemies changed and there would be more controversial wars against drugs and crime than against things like poverty or cancer. There would be a steady unraveling of cultural consensuses that started in the Civil Rights era that would continue to intensify during this time. Unions declined and workers became more compliant. More cultural issues would arise.

Some or even a lot of you may not perceive these things  over the last few decades but many of you do.

My question is, what would a future Democratic or Republican alignment look like? How would major policies, coalitions, and platforms change?

[MRS. MEE SUM CHU]

However, I think, 50/50 shot in the next 20 years and definitely in the next 40, a chance for a depolarization and a realignment. I would think that this would  mean that one party wins a large trifecta (400+EVS/10%+ in the presidency and AT LEAST 55-60% of the seats in both chambers) and gets their trifecta through a "hattrick" of elections (perhaps from a first election to at least a six years' itch) and maybe holds on to some federal control through at least that presidential election on year 8. After this happening, I see the other party relying on different voters, regions, and tactics to rebalance the power and perhaps the majority party becomes even more increasingly reliant of their voters.

My question is, what would a future Democratic or Republican alignment look like? How would major policies, coalitions, and platforms change?

It'd be interesting to see this happen with either Latinos or Amazon employees (both becoming Tossup to Tilt R in the wake of a hypothetical D-dominant realignment).

[Skill and Chance]

I would go with something like this:



1. Hispanic movement toward Republicans continues and accelerates. Republicans reclaim AZ, NV, and NM, fight to a draw in Texas even as Austin grows and are routinely able to hold Democrats to 2004 margins in CA.
2. Except for tech enclaves, the urban cores of the nation's largest cities continue swinging GOP.  This makes Florida and much of the Midwest uncontestable for Dems.  In California, L.A. County is pretty close, but Dem dominance holds in the Bay Area.
3. Small cities with significant creative/entertainment/tech influence trend hard Dem. 
4. A rising religious left movement develops, including Mormons, the black church, and a notable minority of white Evangelicals.  UT, ID, MT and much of the South flips Dem.  The most secular areas trend GOP.
5. GOP domination of and dependence on Florida leads to the party making significant concessions on climate change.  Traditionally environmentalist areas trend GOP and resource extraction areas trend Dem across the board, but they don't switch sides outright because the margins were so high to begin with.  This saves Dems from 1 and 2 in Texas.

BTW this is probably a long term Dem EC advantage because of the tighter margins in CA and how inelastic the South is.

[หมูเด้ง]

I would go with something like this:



1. Hispanic movement toward Republicans continues and accelerates. Republicans reclaim AZ, NV, and NM, fight to a draw in Texas even as Austin grows and are routinely able to hold Democrats to 2004 margins in CA.
2. Except for tech enclaves, the urban cores of the nation's largest cities continue swinging GOP.  This makes Florida and much of the Midwest uncontestable for Dems.  In California, L.A. County is pretty close, but Dem dominance holds in the Bay Area.
3. Small cities with significant creative/entertainment/tech influence trend hard Dem. 
4. A rising religious left movement develops, including Mormons, the black church, and a notable minority of white Evangelicals.  UT, ID, MT and much of the South flips Dem.  The most secular areas trend GOP.
5. GOP domination of and dependence on Florida leads to the party making significant concessions on climate change.  Traditionally environmentalist areas trend GOP and resource extraction areas trend Dem across the board, but they don't switch sides outright because the margins were so high to begin with.  This saves Dems from 1 and 2 in Texas.

BTW this is probably a long term Dem EC advantage because of the tighter margins in CA and how inelastic the South is.

So what issues would then be considered unreasonable or reasonable now?

[Non Swing Voter]

We all talk about new parties, third parties, and transitioning to a one party state. To the vast majority of us here, its very to difficult to imagine more than a slight chance of a ephemeral scenario of anything like this(like in 1992) in our lifetimes.

However, I think, 50/50 shot in the next 20 years and definitely in the next 40, a chance for a depolarization and a realignment. I would think that this would  mean that one party wins a large trifecta (400+EVS/10%+ in the presidency and AT LEAST 55-60% of the seats in both chambers) and gets their trifecta through a "hattrick" of elections (perhaps from a first election to at least a six years' itch) and maybe holds on to some federal control through at least that presidential election on year 8. After this happening, I see the other party relying on different voters, regions, and tactics to rebalance the power and perhaps the majority party becomes even more increasingly reliant of their voters.

What this usually entails is that there is a substantial shift in policy, coalitions, platforms, and the "Overton Window".

For example, 1980 is considered a realignment because it shifted policy towards an austere and neo-liberal mindset. Top tax rates would be cut in half (and income taxes were almost flat for a little while), there would be no one anti-poverty measures, overt racial issues were abandoned for more indirect racial issues or religious issues. The debate around the role of the government became more about determining how it would determine who could participate in society rather than its direct role in the economy. Democrats would steadily gain more middle class and upper middle class voters and Republicans would gain more southern, rural, and poor white voters. The Cold War consensus would be reinforced but changed as the enemies changed and there would be more controversial wars against drugs and crime than against things like poverty or cancer. There would be a steady unraveling of cultural consensuses that started in the Civil Rights era that would continue to intensify during this time. Unions declined and workers became more compliant. More cultural issues would arise.

Some or even a lot of you may not perceive these things  over the last few decades but many of you do.

My question is, what would a future Democratic or Republican alignment look like? How would major policies, coalitions, and platforms change?

I think the realignment happens after either (a) Texas or (b) multiple southern states (Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona) in a reliable manner, such that it is clear that the Democratic Party is favored there like in Virginia. 

When that happens the GOP will clearly have no national path under current coalitions and will either attempt to (a) become a more diverse working class party or (b) return to the country club party that was fiscally conservative/pragmatic but socially moderate to liberal.

They really have a hard choice because going route (a) probably alienates much of its working class white base even though they'd be aligned on fiscal issues.  But going route (b) puts them out of touch with the more fringe religious elements in their party.

If I were advising them I would go route (b).  They already packed the court so religious conservatives have some level of protection, and they can still appeal to a more diverse electorate, just not on working class issues.

[หมูเด้ง]

We all talk about new parties, third parties, and transitioning to a one party state. To the vast majority of us here, its very to difficult to imagine more than a slight chance of a ephemeral scenario of anything like this(like in 1992) in our lifetimes.

However, I think, 50/50 shot in the next 20 years and definitely in the next 40, a chance for a depolarization and a realignment. I would think that this would  mean that one party wins a large trifecta (400+EVS/10%+ in the presidency and AT LEAST 55-60% of the seats in both chambers) and gets their trifecta through a "hattrick" of elections (perhaps from a first election to at least a six years' itch) and maybe holds on to some federal control through at least that presidential election on year 8. After this happening, I see the other party relying on different voters, regions, and tactics to rebalance the power and perhaps the majority party becomes even more increasingly reliant of their voters.

What this usually entails is that there is a substantial shift in policy, coalitions, platforms, and the "Overton Window".

For example, 1980 is considered a realignment because it shifted policy towards an austere and neo-liberal mindset. Top tax rates would be cut in half (and income taxes were almost flat for a little while), there would be no one anti-poverty measures, overt racial issues were abandoned for more indirect racial issues or religious issues. The debate around the role of the government became more about determining how it would determine who could participate in society rather than its direct role in the economy. Democrats would steadily gain more middle class and upper middle class voters and Republicans would gain more southern, rural, and poor white voters. The Cold War consensus would be reinforced but changed as the enemies changed and there would be more controversial wars against drugs and crime than against things like poverty or cancer. There would be a steady unraveling of cultural consensuses that started in the Civil Rights era that would continue to intensify during this time. Unions declined and workers became more compliant. More cultural issues would arise.

Some or even a lot of you may not perceive these things  over the last few decades but many of you do.

My question is, what would a future Democratic or Republican alignment look like? How would major policies, coalitions, and platforms change?

I think the realignment happens after either (a) Texas or (b) multiple southern states (Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona) in a reliable manner, such that it is clear that the Democratic Party is favored there like in Virginia. 

When that happens the GOP will clearly have no national path under current coalitions and will either attempt to (a) become a more diverse working class party or (b) return to the country club party that was fiscally conservative/pragmatic but socially moderate to liberal.

They really have a hard choice because going route (a) probably alienates much of its working class white base even though they'd be aligned on fiscal issues.  But going route (b) puts them out of touch with the more fringe religious elements in their party.

If I were advising them I would go route (b).  They already packed the court so religious conservatives have some level of protection, and they can still appeal to a more diverse electorate, just not on working class issues.

Packing SCOTUS will allow liberals to campaign on more reasonable positions on social issues. “Abortion should be legal for a small reasonable window vs abortion is murder” is a better match than “abortion is completely OK no matter what vs Abortion should be subtlety but actively discouraged”. The same will eventually be true for guns, weed, and a whole bunch of issues where ACB and Thomas will try to ram who knows what down our throat.

Of course the opposite is true as well. If we get to the point where the Great Lakes and Florida are Mussourified and GA/AZ/TX/NC simply act like Florida, then the Democrats will have to change their tune as well.

[Skill and Chance]

I would go with something like this:



1. Hispanic movement toward Republicans continues and accelerates. Republicans reclaim AZ, NV, and NM, fight to a draw in Texas even as Austin grows and are routinely able to hold Democrats to 2004 margins in CA.
2. Except for tech enclaves, the urban cores of the nation's largest cities continue swinging GOP.  This makes Florida and much of the Midwest uncontestable for Dems.  In California, L.A. County is pretty close, but Dem dominance holds in the Bay Area.
3. Small cities with significant creative/entertainment/tech influence trend hard Dem. 
4. A rising religious left movement develops, including Mormons, the black church, and a notable minority of white Evangelicals.  UT, ID, MT and much of the South flips Dem.  The most secular areas trend GOP.
5. GOP domination of and dependence on Florida leads to the party making significant concessions on climate change.  Traditionally environmentalist areas trend GOP and resource extraction areas trend Dem across the board, but they don't switch sides outright because the margins were so high to begin with.  This saves Dems from 1 and 2 in Texas.

BTW this is probably a long term Dem EC advantage because of the tighter margins in CA and how inelastic the South is.

So what issues would then be considered unreasonable or reasonable now?

1. This almost surely involves SCOTUS overturning/narrowing Roe/Casey enough in the next few years that abortion is primarily a state level issue again.  It's basically a prerequisite to get a meaningful religious left presence that abortion stops being a federal issue. 

2. The COVID era welfare state expansion mostly sticks. Dems get most of the credit.  This eventually helps them in the rural South, but only after #1 is complete.

3. Tariffs/tough on China policy becoming mainstream eventually does lead to a manufacturing revival and a more secure middle class, particularly in the North.  GOP gets most of the credit. 

4. In a reversal of 2000-2020, inflation is generally more of a concern than unemployment, with the GOP being the inflation hawk party.  Retiree heavy states hate the inflation and drift GOP.  Commodity producing states like the inflation and drift Dem.  The financial services industry snaps back hard to the right. 

5.  Going after Big Tech and the entertainment industry's growing ties to China is a major part of the GOP platform, although what exactly they can legally do about it is unclear. 

[หมูเด้ง]

I would go with something like this:



1. Hispanic movement toward Republicans continues and accelerates. Republicans reclaim AZ, NV, and NM, fight to a draw in Texas even as Austin grows and are routinely able to hold Democrats to 2004 margins in CA.
2. Except for tech enclaves, the urban cores of the nation's largest cities continue swinging GOP.  This makes Florida and much of the Midwest uncontestable for Dems.  In California, L.A. County is pretty close, but Dem dominance holds in the Bay Area.
3. Small cities with significant creative/entertainment/tech influence trend hard Dem.  
4. A rising religious left movement develops, including Mormons, the black church, and a notable minority of white Evangelicals.  UT, ID, MT and much of the South flips Dem.  The most secular areas trend GOP.
5. GOP domination of and dependence on Florida leads to the party making significant concessions on climate change.  Traditionally environmentalist areas trend GOP and resource extraction areas trend Dem across the board, but they don't switch sides outright because the margins were so high to begin with.  This saves Dems from 1 and 2 in Texas.

BTW this is probably a long term Dem EC advantage because of the tighter margins in CA and how inelastic the South is.

So what issues would then be considered unreasonable or reasonable now?

1. This almost surely involves SCOTUS overturning/narrowing Roe/Casey enough in the next few years that abortion is primarily a state level issue again.  It's basically a prerequisite to get a meaningful religious left presence that abortion stops being a federal issue.  

2. The COVID era welfare state expansion mostly sticks. Dems get most of the credit.  This eventually helps them in the rural South, but only after #1 is complete.

3. Tariffs/tough on China policy becoming mainstream eventually does lead to a manufacturing revival and a more secure middle class, particularly in the North.  GOP gets most of the credit.  

4. In a reversal of 2000-2020, inflation is generally more of a concern than unemployment, with the GOP being the inflation hawk party.  Retiree heavy states hate the inflation and drift GOP.  Commodity producing states like the inflation and drift Dem.  The financial services industry snaps back hard to the right.  

5.  Going after Big Tech and the entertainment industry's growing ties to China is a major part of the GOP platform, although what exactly they can legally do about it is unclear.  

So basically a rescrambling where there remerges a depolarized Democratic and Republican Party where we see Northern Moderates and Southern conservatives.

What happens to modern liberals and conservatives?

[Skill and Chance]

I would go with something like this:



1. Hispanic movement toward Republicans continues and accelerates. Republicans reclaim AZ, NV, and NM, fight to a draw in Texas even as Austin grows and are routinely able to hold Democrats to 2004 margins in CA.
2. Except for tech enclaves, the urban cores of the nation's largest cities continue swinging GOP.  This makes Florida and much of the Midwest uncontestable for Dems.  In California, L.A. County is pretty close, but Dem dominance holds in the Bay Area.
3. Small cities with significant creative/entertainment/tech influence trend hard Dem. 
4. A rising religious left movement develops, including Mormons, the black church, and a notable minority of white Evangelicals.  UT, ID, MT and much of the South flips Dem.  The most secular areas trend GOP.
5. GOP domination of and dependence on Florida leads to the party making significant concessions on climate change.  Traditionally environmentalist areas trend GOP and resource extraction areas trend Dem across the board, but they don't switch sides outright because the margins were so high to begin with.  This saves Dems from 1 and 2 in Texas.

BTW this is probably a long term Dem EC advantage because of the tighter margins in CA and how inelastic the South is.

So what issues would then be considered unreasonable or reasonable now?

1. This almost surely involves SCOTUS overturning/narrowing Roe/Casey enough in the next few years that abortion is primarily a state level issue again.  It's basically a prerequisite to get a meaningful religious left presence that abortion stops being a federal issue. 

2. The COVID era welfare state expansion mostly sticks. Dems get most of the credit.  This eventually helps them in the rural South, but only after #1 is complete.

3. Tariffs/tough on China policy becoming mainstream eventually does lead to a manufacturing revival and a more secure middle class, particularly in the North.  GOP gets most of the credit. 

4. In a reversal of 2000-2020, inflation is generally more of a concern than unemployment, with the GOP being the inflation hawk party.  Retiree heavy states hate the inflation and drift GOP.  Commodity producing states like the inflation and drift Dem.  The financial services industry snaps back hard to the right. 

5.  Going after Big Tech and the entertainment industry's growing ties to China is a major part of the GOP platform, although what exactly they can legally do about it is unclear. 

So basically a rescrambling where there remerges a depolarized Democratic and Republican Party where we see Northern Moderates and Southern conservatives.

What happens to modern liberals and conservatives?

Probably.  As recently as early 2020, we were headed for an era of nationalist Republican dominance with Dems focusing exclusively on social liberalism and probably getting shut out until 2028, but then Trump inexplicably went hard libertarian on COVID and scrambled everything.  Now Biden's people are basically coopting the national conservative fiscal agenda and the new Supreme Court will basically shut down any further shifts to the cultural left.  On some level, Biden's people seem to get that they got lucky and 2020 Dem coalition is nonviable in the long run, but the rest of the party is kicking and screaming about it.   

[pbrower2a]

The GOP has yet to realize what a deep hole it has dug for itself. Republicans would be wise to put distance between themselves and Trump's personality and especially the January 6 insurrection.

It will take some stark defeats such as those that the Hoover-era GOP experienced in the 1930's to give up on an agenda that worked extremely well in the 1980's but works badly now. Sure, 2020 was close with Democrats barely winning the Presidency and barely holding the House while getting a 50-50 split of the Senate.  Of course we have yet to see those stark defeats which will appear in unlikely places (the mark of a Party in deep trouble).

It would have been wise for Donald Trump to treat his electoral loss much as Al Gore did... but wisdom and Donald Trump fit together about as well as a stock Model T Ford and contemporary auto racing. Republicans who have defended Donald Trump after the insurrection are too commonplace.

For a while the GOP became a place for people with political but no connection to existing  machines who get shut out, for dissidents from the Democratic Party, and in cases in which someone on the outside wanted to run against Democratic corruption. Over time, some farm and ranch interests moved away from the Democratic Party and the New Deal.

But that was with a GOP trying to downplay the role of Herbert Hoover in defining their Party. At the least Hoover was a man with a moral compass, and his economic principles were suspect. With Donald Trump one has someone with no moral compass.  That will be the difference.   

[CadetCashBoi]

I would go with something like this:



1. Hispanic movement toward Republicans continues and accelerates. Republicans reclaim AZ, NV, and NM, fight to a draw in Texas even as Austin grows and are routinely able to hold Democrats to 2004 margins in CA.
2. Except for tech enclaves, the urban cores of the nation's largest cities continue swinging GOP.  This makes Florida and much of the Midwest uncontestable for Dems.  In California, L.A. County is pretty close, but Dem dominance holds in the Bay Area.
3. Small cities with significant creative/entertainment/tech influence trend hard Dem. 
4. A rising religious left movement develops, including Mormons, the black church, and a notable minority of white Evangelicals.  UT, ID, MT and much of the South flips Dem.  The most secular areas trend GOP.
5. GOP domination of and dependence on Florida leads to the party making significant concessions on climate change.  Traditionally environmentalist areas trend GOP and resource extraction areas trend Dem across the board, but they don't switch sides outright because the margins were so high to begin with.  This saves Dems from 1 and 2 in Texas.

BTW this is probably a long term Dem EC advantage because of the tighter margins in CA and how inelastic the South is.

So what issues would then be considered unreasonable or reasonable now?

1. This almost surely involves SCOTUS overturning/narrowing Roe/Casey enough in the next few years that abortion is primarily a state level issue again.  It's basically a prerequisite to get a meaningful religious left presence that abortion stops being a federal issue. 

2. The COVID era welfare state expansion mostly sticks. Dems get most of the credit.  This eventually helps them in the rural South, but only after #1 is complete.

3. Tariffs/tough on China policy becoming mainstream eventually does lead to a manufacturing revival and a more secure middle class, particularly in the North.  GOP gets most of the credit. 

4. In a reversal of 2000-2020, inflation is generally more of a concern than unemployment, with the GOP being the inflation hawk party.  Retiree heavy states hate the inflation and drift GOP.  Commodity producing states like the inflation and drift Dem.  The financial services industry snaps back hard to the right. 

5.  Going after Big Tech and the entertainment industry's growing ties to China is a major part of the GOP platform, although what exactly they can legally do about it is unclear. 

I like the sound of this tbh, a depolarized electorate and also a bipartisan shift away from neoliberalism would make for a better country.

[CadetCashBoi]

I would go with something like this:



1. Hispanic movement toward Republicans continues and accelerates. Republicans reclaim AZ, NV, and NM, fight to a draw in Texas even as Austin grows and are routinely able to hold Democrats to 2004 margins in CA.
2. Except for tech enclaves, the urban cores of the nation's largest cities continue swinging GOP.  This makes Florida and much of the Midwest uncontestable for Dems.  In California, L.A. County is pretty close, but Dem dominance holds in the Bay Area.
3. Small cities with significant creative/entertainment/tech influence trend hard Dem. 
4. A rising religious left movement develops, including Mormons, the black church, and a notable minority of white Evangelicals.  UT, ID, MT and much of the South flips Dem.  The most secular areas trend GOP.
5. GOP domination of and dependence on Florida leads to the party making significant concessions on climate change.  Traditionally environmentalist areas trend GOP and resource extraction areas trend Dem across the board, but they don't switch sides outright because the margins were so high to begin with.  This saves Dems from 1 and 2 in Texas.

BTW this is probably a long term Dem EC advantage because of the tighter margins in CA and how inelastic the South is.

So what issues would then be considered unreasonable or reasonable now?

1. This almost surely involves SCOTUS overturning/narrowing Roe/Casey enough in the next few years that abortion is primarily a state level issue again.  It's basically a prerequisite to get a meaningful religious left presence that abortion stops being a federal issue. 

2. The COVID era welfare state expansion mostly sticks. Dems get most of the credit.  This eventually helps them in the rural South, but only after #1 is complete.

3. Tariffs/tough on China policy becoming mainstream eventually does lead to a manufacturing revival and a more secure middle class, particularly in the North.  GOP gets most of the credit. 

4. In a reversal of 2000-2020, inflation is generally more of a concern than unemployment, with the GOP being the inflation hawk party.  Retiree heavy states hate the inflation and drift GOP.  Commodity producing states like the inflation and drift Dem.  The financial services industry snaps back hard to the right. 

5.  Going after Big Tech and the entertainment industry's growing ties to China is a major part of the GOP platform, although what exactly they can legally do about it is unclear. 

So basically a rescrambling where there remerges a depolarized Democratic and Republican Party where we see Northern Moderates and Southern conservatives.

What happens to modern liberals and conservatives?

Probably.  As recently as early 2020, we were headed for an era of nationalist Republican dominance with Dems focusing exclusively on social liberalism and probably getting shut out until 2028, but then Trump inexplicably went hard libertarian on COVID and scrambled everything.  Now Biden's people are basically coopting the national conservative fiscal agenda and the new Supreme Court will basically shut down any further shifts to the cultural left.  On some level, Biden's people seem to get that they got lucky and 2020 Dem coalition is nonviable in the long run, but the rest of the party is kicking and screaming about it.   

I wouldn't be too quick to assume it's non-viable.

[pbrower2a]

[Unless the GOP cleans up its act, it will steadily shrink as a Party until it loses relevance. The Democratic Party will become a Big Tent Party before it splits into two parties -- maybe "Social Democrats" and "Christian Democrats" to suggest Germany or "Labor" and "Conservative" in an allusion to the UK.

[EastwoodS]

[Unless the GOP cleans up its act, it will steadily shrink as a Party until it loses relevance. The Democratic Party will become a Big Tent Party before it splits into two parties -- maybe "Social Democrats" and "Christian Democrats" to suggest Germany or "Labor" and "Conservative" in an allusion to the UK.

What? I laughed at the silliness of that.  You’re too hopeful for a party that’s not even better off. Chill.

[หมูเด้ง]

[Unless the GOP cleans up its act, it will steadily shrink as a Party until it loses relevance. The Democratic Party will become a Big Tent Party before it splits into two parties -- maybe "Social Democrats" and "Christian Democrats" to suggest Germany or "Labor" and "Conservative" in an allusion to the UK.

What? I laughed at the silliness of that.  You’re too hopeful for a party that’s not even better off. Chill.

I agree. Depolarization will happen before one of the two party becomes completely powerless. The only real variables is the timing between people moving out of the Great Lakes, people moving into the sun belt and how many of those people are old, rich "simps".

If the next couple of maps look like 2016, we are going to see a lot of Democrat fight hard to enshrine left of center social policy in the states they have left and move to run nativist, natalist, protectionist moderates and conservatives who will still fight hard for unions, public health, and eating the rich in places like Arizona, North Carolina, and Florida. Maybe even Ohio. Eventually, we will get to where we are going. This is true if the reverse happens and North Carolina or Georgia is called and the election is called when polls close in California. Republicans will introduce more natalist , nativist, and crypto-segregationist policies where they held on downballot but start running pro-choice people in places like Colorado, Oregon, Virginia and even Maine.

By sometime in the 2030s, Civil Rights/Identity issues will be like they were in the New Deal Era on all the issues that have matured at this point. I can see abortion, marijuana, and some LGBT issues being dealt the same way that Right To Work stuff has been dealt with. Perhaps even districting and state admittance will be dealt with in a way that there will be at least 20states/200 EVs for "Green" states, "Brown" states, gay states, straight states, right to life states, freedom of choice states... you name it.

2030- 2080 could be a lot like 1930 -1980.

[CadetCashBoi]

[Unless the GOP cleans up its act, it will steadily shrink as a Party until it loses relevance. The Democratic Party will become a Big Tent Party before it splits into two parties -- maybe "Social Democrats" and "Christian Democrats" to suggest Germany or "Labor" and "Conservative" in an allusion to the UK.

Before the 2020 election I actually predicted that Bernie would be the nominee and transform the Democrats into a socially democratic party and that a coalition of libertarians, NeverTrump Republicans and DLC Democrats would form a small centrist third party that would essentially be the American LibDems. Then when he won the nomination and shortly after winning the election when it looked like he wouldn't be able to have any sort of domestic agenda because of a Republican controlled senate I thought it would be the left that would break away. Right now though he seems to be keeping both factions of the party reasonably satisfied. I suppose that could change easily over the next decade though.

[Nightcore Nationalist]

[Unless the GOP cleans up its act, it will steadily shrink as a Party until it loses relevance. The Democratic Party will become a Big Tent Party before it splits into two parties -- maybe "Social Democrats" and "Christian Democrats" to suggest Germany or "Labor" and "Conservative" in an allusion to the UK.

What? I laughed at the silliness of that.  You’re too hopeful for a party that’s not even better off. Chill.

Actually, Eastwood I was assured by some Very Serious People*tm* that the party that currently possesses 212 house seats, 50 senate seats and 26 house delegations is on the fast path to extinction, don't ya know.

[Nightcore Nationalist]

I think the realignment happens after either (a) Texas or (b) multiple southern states (Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona) in a reliable manner, such that it is clear that the Democratic Party is favored there like in Virginia. 

When that happens the GOP will clearly have no national path under current coalitions and will either attempt to (a) become a more diverse working class party or (b) return to the country club party that was fiscally conservative/pragmatic but socially moderate to liberal.

They really have a hard choice because going route (a) probably alienates much of its working class white base even though they'd be aligned on fiscal issues.  But going route (b) puts them out of touch with the more fringe religious elements in their party.

If I were advising them I would go route (b).  They already packed the court so religious conservatives have some level of protection, and they can still appeal to a more diverse electorate, just not on working class issues.

I'm curious how going route a) would "alienate it's wwc base" as long as the GOP is smart enough to still take social/cultural conservatism seriously, and not kowtow to corporate influence as Kristi Noem and Asa Hutchinson have recently (and there are many more examples of GOPer's foolish subservience to big Capital)

As far as option b) it's a bad choice for the GOP to make.  A party that's very fiscally conservative/reaganite while being simultaneously centre-left on social and cultural issues has a tiny constituency.  That route is suicide.

[Skill and Chance]

[Unless the GOP cleans up its act, it will steadily shrink as a Party until it loses relevance. The Democratic Party will become a Big Tent Party before it splits into two parties -- maybe "Social Democrats" and "Christian Democrats" to suggest Germany or "Labor" and "Conservative" in an allusion to the UK.

What? I laughed at the silliness of that.  You’re too hopeful for a party that’s not even better off. Chill.

Actually, Eastwood I was assured by some Very Serious People*tm* that the party that currently possesses 212 house seats, 50 senate seats and 26 house delegations is on the fast path to extinction, don't ya know.

Yes.

In terms of who actually holds power, this was the closest election since 2000.  Biden getting an extra 3% of the nationwide vote out of CA and TX is simply irrelevant.

[EastwoodS]

Btw, since this thread is talking about possible realignments, I’d thought I just say that while I can see Texas going blue one day in the future, I can’t see it going blue as fast as many Democrat hopefuls do; I really can’t see how Texas goes blue before the Midwest and north do? See the EC has always and even more so since about 2000 has shifted and realigned to keep both parties at a healthy and clear path to the White House. If you just flip Texas and it goes the way of Virginia, how does the GOP regain the presidency? More so, if Abbott and Cornyns margins say anything about TX, it’s that the state really still likes establishment Republicans. I just can’t see TX flipping for good before states like PA, MI, and WI flip. TX flipping for good would mean the end of the GOP for a while and like many Democrats have even said on here, that’s unlikely. I can’t see the GOP not doing anything possible to keep the state as well, massive overhaul of a policy? Shifting on economics? They won’t just let it go like they did with Virginia because they simply can’t afford to ~let it go..yet.. that is all.

[Skill and Chance]

Btw, since this thread is talking about possible realignments, I’d thought I just say that while I can see Texas going blue one day in the future, I can’t see it going blue as fast as many Democrat hopefuls do; I really can’t see how Texas goes blue before the Midwest and north do? See the EC has always and even more so since about 2000 has shifted and realigned to keep both parties at a healthy and clear path to the White House. If you just flip Texas and it goes the way of Virginia, how does the GOP regain the presidency? More so, if Abbott and Cornyns margins say anything about TX, it’s that the state really still likes establishment Republicans. I just can’t see TX flipping for good before states like PA, MI, and WI flip. TX flipping for good would mean the end of the GOP for a while and like many Democrats have even said on here, that’s unlikely. I can’t see the GOP not doing anything possible to keep the state as well, massive overhaul of a policy? Shifting on economics? They won’t just let it go like Virginia because they simply can’t afford to ~let it go..yet.. that is all.

Hmmm...

This is the tied PV map for 2020, assuming uniform swing



And here is the tied PV map for 2016 under uniform swing



Now, suppose Dems succeed in getting Texas to vote left of the country by 2028.  Under those circumstances, I think it's reasonable to assume AZ and especially GA would also vote left of the PV, but let's do a worst case scenario for the GOP and assume they gain no further ground in the Midwest/NE while Dems finally break through in NC.  Here's what that would look like with the 2020's apportionment:



Doing all of this still gives Democrats less of an EC advantage than Trump already enjoyed in both of his elections!

[หมูเด้ง]

Btw, since this thread is talking about possible realignments, I’d thought I just say that while I can see Texas going blue one day in the future, I can’t see it going blue as fast as many Democrat hopefuls do; I really can’t see how Texas goes blue before the Midwest and north do? See the EC has always and even more so since about 2000 has shifted and realigned to keep both parties at a healthy and clear path to the White House. If you just flip Texas and it goes the way of Virginia, how does the GOP regain the presidency? More so, if Abbott and Cornyns margins say anything about TX, it’s that the state really still likes establishment Republicans. I just can’t see TX flipping for good before states like PA, MI, and WI flip. TX flipping for good would mean the end of the GOP for a while and like many Democrats have even said on here, that’s unlikely. I can’t see the GOP not doing anything possible to keep the state as well, massive overhaul of a policy? Shifting on economics? They won’t just let it go like Virginia because they simply can’t afford to ~let it go..yet.. that is all.

Hmmm...

This is the tied PV map for 2020, assuming uniform swing



And here is the tied PV map for 2016 under uniform swing



Now, suppose Dems succeed in getting Texas to vote left of the country by 2028.  Under those circumstances, I think it's reasonable to assume AZ and especially GA would also vote left of the PV, but let's do a worst case scenario for the GOP and assume they gain no further ground in the Midwest/NE while Dems finally break through in NC.  Here's what that would look like with the 2020's apportionment:



Doing all of this still gives Democrats less of an EC advantage than Trump already enjoyed in both of his elections!

I mean if Democrats are ready to let go of Florida this easily and still somehow afford to win somewhat comfortably without them (They could have gotten 15 EVs, 52 senators and 230 representatives, and perhaps a couple of state chambers before they picked up Florida). It appears that the Republicans will adapt just as well if they can no longer count on Texas.

Maybe Texas as a blue state could be a stretch, though. It's really hard to see them still competing for any of the sunbelt if they can't compete even in Texas.

The same can be really said for Democrats in rust belt. They needed to sweep the rust belt to have a reasonable chance of winning anything and now they can win by just splitting it. Democrats are adapting and so will Republicans. That all said, if Texas does start to slip away, that would be a wake up call that mass deportation, making alternative lifestyles illegal, while still not offering anything of substance to directly benefit those who make modest livings isn't a good platform. They will have to choose identity politics or their monopolies/monopsonies. They won't be able to have both.

Like I said, I think that in 20 years, an average Republican campaign will do well in sun belt state and maybe OK in 1 or 2 others and the same for a Democrat (they will still have Illinois and equal chances in Michigan and Minnesota) but if one set of states swings faster than the other ones, we will have a cycle or two where maybe saying local school boards or individual states know what's better for the people that live there wouldn't be a bad idea.

[EastwoodS]

Btw, since this thread is talking about possible realignments, I’d thought I just say that while I can see Texas going blue one day in the future, I can’t see it going blue as fast as many Democrat hopefuls do; I really can’t see how Texas goes blue before the Midwest and north do? See the EC has always and even more so since about 2000 has shifted and realigned to keep both parties at a healthy and clear path to the White House. If you just flip Texas and it goes the way of Virginia, how does the GOP regain the presidency? More so, if Abbott and Cornyns margins say anything about TX, it’s that the state really still likes establishment Republicans. I just can’t see TX flipping for good before states like PA, MI, and WI flip. TX flipping for good would mean the end of the GOP for a while and like many Democrats have even said on here, that’s unlikely. I can’t see the GOP not doing anything possible to keep the state as well, massive overhaul of a policy? Shifting on economics? They won’t just let it go like Virginia because they simply can’t afford to ~let it go..yet.. that is all.

Hmmm...

This is the tied PV map for 2020, assuming uniform swing



And here is the tied PV map for 2016 under uniform swing



Now, suppose Dems succeed in getting Texas to vote left of the country by 2028.  Under those circumstances, I think it's reasonable to assume AZ and especially GA would also vote left of the PV, but let's do a worst case scenario for the GOP and assume they gain no further ground in the Midwest/NE while Dems finally break through in NC.  Here's what that would look like with the 2020's apportionment:



Doing all of this still gives Democrats less of an EC advantage than Trump already enjoyed in both of his elections!

I mean if Democrats are ready to let go of Florida this easily and still somehow afford to win somewhat comfortably without them (They could have gotten 15 EVs, 52 senators and 230 representatives, and perhaps a couple of state chambers before they picked up Florida). It appears that the Republicans will adapt just as well if they can no longer count on Texas.

Maybe Texas as a blue state could be a stretch, though. It's really hard to see them still competing for any of the sunbelt if they can't compete even in Texas.

The same can be really said for Democrats in rust belt. They needed to sweep the rust belt to have a reasonable chance of winning anything and now they can win by just splitting it. Democrats are adapting and so will Republicans. That all said, if Texas does start to slip away, that would be a wake up call that mass deportation, making alternative lifestyles illegal, while still not offering anything of substance to directly benefit those who make modest livings isn't a good platform. They will have to choose identity politics or their monopolies/monopsonies. They won't be able to have both.

Like I said, I think that in 20 years, an average Republican campaign will do well in sun belt state and maybe OK in 1 or 2 others and the same for a Democrat (they will still have Illinois and equal chances in Michigan and Minnesota) but if one set of states swings faster than the other ones, we will have a cycle or two where maybe saying local school boards or individual states know what's better for the people that live there wouldn't be a bad idea.

Show me a realistic electoral map where the GOP wins but can’t carry Texas, I’ll  wait.

[freepcrusher]

I would go with something like this:



1. Hispanic movement toward Republicans continues and accelerates. Republicans reclaim AZ, NV, and NM, fight to a draw in Texas even as Austin grows and are routinely able to hold Democrats to 2004 margins in CA.
2. Except for tech enclaves, the urban cores of the nation's largest cities continue swinging GOP.  This makes Florida and much of the Midwest uncontestable for Dems.  In California, L.A. County is pretty close, but Dem dominance holds in the Bay Area.
3. Small cities with significant creative/entertainment/tech influence trend hard Dem. 
4. A rising religious left movement develops, including Mormons, the black church, and a notable minority of white Evangelicals.  UT, ID, MT and much of the South flips Dem.  The most secular areas trend GOP.
5. GOP domination of and dependence on Florida leads to the party making significant concessions on climate change.  Traditionally environmentalist areas trend GOP and resource extraction areas trend Dem across the board, but they don't switch sides outright because the margins were so high to begin with.  This saves Dems from 1 and 2 in Texas.

BTW this is probably a long term Dem EC advantage because of the tighter margins in CA and how inelastic the South is.

So what issues would then be considered unreasonable or reasonable now?

1. This almost surely involves SCOTUS overturning/narrowing Roe/Casey enough in the next few years that abortion is primarily a state level issue again.  It's basically a prerequisite to get a meaningful religious left presence that abortion stops being a federal issue. 

2. The COVID era welfare state expansion mostly sticks. Dems get most of the credit.  This eventually helps them in the rural South, but only after #1 is complete.

3. Tariffs/tough on China policy becoming mainstream eventually does lead to a manufacturing revival and a more secure middle class, particularly in the North.  GOP gets most of the credit. 

4. In a reversal of 2000-2020, inflation is generally more of a concern than unemployment, with the GOP being the inflation hawk party.  Retiree heavy states hate the inflation and drift GOP.  Commodity producing states like the inflation and drift Dem.  The financial services industry snaps back hard to the right. 

5.  Going after Big Tech and the entertainment industry's growing ties to China is a major part of the GOP platform, although what exactly they can legally do about it is unclear. 

So basically a rescrambling where there remerges a depolarized Democratic and Republican Party where we see Northern Moderates and Southern conservatives.

What happens to modern liberals and conservatives?

Probably.  As recently as early 2020, we were headed for an era of nationalist Republican dominance with Dems focusing exclusively on social liberalism and probably getting shut out until 2028, but then Trump inexplicably went hard libertarian on COVID and scrambled everything.  Now Biden's people are basically coopting the national conservative fiscal agenda and the new Supreme Court will basically shut down any further shifts to the cultural left.  On some level, Biden's people seem to get that they got lucky and 2020 Dem coalition is nonviable in the long run, but the rest of the party is kicking and screaming about it.   

after a second Trump win in 2020, there's no reason to think dems don't get 53% or so of the PV in 2024.

[Skill and Chance]

I would go with something like this:



1. Hispanic movement toward Republicans continues and accelerates. Republicans reclaim AZ, NV, and NM, fight to a draw in Texas even as Austin grows and are routinely able to hold Democrats to 2004 margins in CA.
2. Except for tech enclaves, the urban cores of the nation's largest cities continue swinging GOP.  This makes Florida and much of the Midwest uncontestable for Dems.  In California, L.A. County is pretty close, but Dem dominance holds in the Bay Area.
3. Small cities with significant creative/entertainment/tech influence trend hard Dem. 
4. A rising religious left movement develops, including Mormons, the black church, and a notable minority of white Evangelicals.  UT, ID, MT and much of the South flips Dem.  The most secular areas trend GOP.
5. GOP domination of and dependence on Florida leads to the party making significant concessions on climate change.  Traditionally environmentalist areas trend GOP and resource extraction areas trend Dem across the board, but they don't switch sides outright because the margins were so high to begin with.  This saves Dems from 1 and 2 in Texas.

BTW this is probably a long term Dem EC advantage because of the tighter margins in CA and how inelastic the South is.

So what issues would then be considered unreasonable or reasonable now?

1. This almost surely involves SCOTUS overturning/narrowing Roe/Casey enough in the next few years that abortion is primarily a state level issue again.  It's basically a prerequisite to get a meaningful religious left presence that abortion stops being a federal issue. 

2. The COVID era welfare state expansion mostly sticks. Dems get most of the credit.  This eventually helps them in the rural South, but only after #1 is complete.

3. Tariffs/tough on China policy becoming mainstream eventually does lead to a manufacturing revival and a more secure middle class, particularly in the North.  GOP gets most of the credit. 

4. In a reversal of 2000-2020, inflation is generally more of a concern than unemployment, with the GOP being the inflation hawk party.  Retiree heavy states hate the inflation and drift GOP.  Commodity producing states like the inflation and drift Dem.  The financial services industry snaps back hard to the right. 

5.  Going after Big Tech and the entertainment industry's growing ties to China is a major part of the GOP platform, although what exactly they can legally do about it is unclear. 

So basically a rescrambling where there remerges a depolarized Democratic and Republican Party where we see Northern Moderates and Southern conservatives.

What happens to modern liberals and conservatives?

Probably.  As recently as early 2020, we were headed for an era of nationalist Republican dominance with Dems focusing exclusively on social liberalism and probably getting shut out until 2028, but then Trump inexplicably went hard libertarian on COVID and scrambled everything.  Now Biden's people are basically coopting the national conservative fiscal agenda and the new Supreme Court will basically shut down any further shifts to the cultural left.  On some level, Biden's people seem to get that they got lucky and 2020 Dem coalition is nonviable in the long run, but the rest of the party is kicking and screaming about it.   

after a second Trump win in 2020, there's no reason to think dems don't get 53% or so of the PV in 2024.

Maybe, but only if the economy gives out.  Otherwise it's like a modern 1920's for Republicans.