Long term, what blue states does the GOP have potential in?

[ProgressiveModerate]

I often see Dems here talk about how long term, demographics change and changing coalitions could make states like KS, AK, or UT more competitive for Dems on the federal level. However, I don't really see much about potentially D states Rs could make competitive federally long term.

For the sake of this, states like NV, MI, PA, and WI don't count because they're currently highly competitive on the federal level and have been for a while.

So only states Trump lost by more than 10%.

Honestly this is a bit challenging because most of these states have either been getting bluer pretty rapidly (VA, CO, OR) or are too Democratic and urban to ever really be competitive, at least in any coalitions remotely similar to todays (CA, NY, MD).

A few possibilities imo:

Illinois - Chicago has been shrinking (though tbf so has the rest of the state). The state has been pretty stagnant politically for a while now, however, that's in large part because Democrats had been able to make up for rural losses with some massive improvements in the Chicago suburbs which seem difficult to replicate again in this decaede. Furthermore, the heavily black South Side of Chicago has been bleeding for quite a while now and generally soi have a lot of the minority communities in the state. There def seem to be some rural communities, especially in the Northern part of the state, in which the GOP has potential to grow. Again, this is really a stretch but not impossible.

New Mexico - While this state has generally gotten bluer, Dems are sorta maxed out in Santa Fe and a lot of the Native American communities are shrinking. There have also been some communities in the heavily Republican southeast corner of the state which have been seeing some really solid growth. This combined with Hispanic losses could be problematic for Ds, especially since the state isn't even that D to begin with.

Delaware - Despite being heavily suburban in nature, the state really isn't particuarly educated, at least compared to other states in the region. The Republican southern part of the state has seen some pretty intense growth due to some retirement old money communities spawning. Furthermore one could argue Biden's 2020 performance in the state was a bit ionflated due to his roots there. A reminder in 2016 Clinton only won the state by about 12%.

After this though, I kinda feel like you're picking at straws.

[ProgressiveModerate]

NM, NJ, and IL with the Hispanic trend.  They could also reasonably have the strength to deny supermajorities in CA and NY in a few years. 

NJ is too educated and too urban to conceivably flip R on the federal level. Even in 2021 when Hudson and Essex Counties had abnormally low turnout which we wouldn't see in a normal year, it still didn't flip. Also the South Jersey communities which vote strongly GOP and where the GOP has largely been gaining really haven't been doing so well population wise. All the NYC spillover should be enough to hold it for Dems. I could see it get into high single digits given the right circumstances though.

CA it's really hard to see the GOP denying Dems a supermajority anytime soon except for in the best of R years; it'd require a pretty substantial reversion in a lot of SoCal suburbs. sweeping rural Cali and the Central Valley isn't enough

NY is much more conceivable though they have a lot of potential on Long Island and Upstate where there are a ton of swingy/narrow Dem districts.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Rhode Island is on borrowed time.

I think it's pretty plausible that Rhode Island moves to the right, but borrowed time--implying that it would flip--is a bit of a stretch imo.

The main issue with this imo is it implies the gop would be winning back educated northeastern suburbs since 80% of RI is greater Providence or affluent liberal coastline communities.

[ProgressiveModerate]

NJ has the potential of a Pub snap back if the salience of economic issues waxes, and cultural issues wanes. NJ is not a woke state.

Jersey has a lot of educated suburbs that vote Dem, but it also has a lot of gritty postindustrial urban centers filled with poor immigrants and lower-middle class suburbanites--which would stay or even move more Dem in this scenario.

Would you consider Union City and the Jersey City highlands such gritty places?

My understanding is that that description characterizes the recent past of quite a bit of Hudson County accurately, but is much less applicable to the present as the area gentrifies, as you'd know. Still plenty of places where that's more accurate though--thinking of Paterson, Trenton, Perth Amboy, etc.

Haven't been to those places, but I have, up close and personal, walking the dog, in those other places. What I see is neighborhoods that appear clean and safe, even if much of the housing looks modest,  comprised of hard working working class immigrants that seem happy and optimistic, and doing well. Many adore the dog, and their kids want to pet him. Another way to put it, is what I see are upwardly mobile folks, and their kids.

As someone familiar with the area, what I'll say is that northeastern NJ is very roady plus there are many active and defunct rail lines, and oftentimes these divide communities very strongly. For instance in Jersey City, inside the I-78 is relatively safe, affluent, and diverse but as soon as you go beyond the highway it becomes very sketchy. For this reason, northeastern NJ is intertwined with all sorts of communities with varying degress of affluence, oftentimes with very sudden transitions betwen two.

From a racial and political map, one can also see this, with generally whiter affluent communities being politically closer than less desireable communities. In other words notorious places such as Rahway, Paterson, or Elizabeth have a relatively "trapped" sphere of influence for this reason.

And then ofc you have Newark which is well, Newark, even though there are some very desireable communities right nearby it, and ironically, the Newark metro is one of the fastest growing parts of the state.

[ProgressiveModerate]

You think the Journal Square area is sketchy? Just asking. I have not walked it, just driven through.

Kinda is outside the 2 70 floor apartment buildings. It's pretty rapidly being developed though largely thanks to the PATH train. Everything around it though is not a place you'd want to be alone at night.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Rhode Island is on borrowed time.

I think it's pretty plausible that Rhode Island moves to the right, but borrowed time--implying that it would flip--is a bit of a stretch imo.

The main issue with this imo is it implies the gop would be winning back educated northeastern suburbs since 80% of RI is greater Providence or affluent liberal coastline communities.

I can't make up my mind about New England.  On the one hand, almost everyone went to college  when compared to other states/regions.  On the other hand, Dems are so massively overperforming with middle class white voters and in rural areas, that I have to wonder if it eventually comes in line with the national average, in which case everything but MA and maybe CT flips.  It's the inverse of the GOP lead in MS and LA.  There's a good reason for the states behaving differently, but you wonder if something has to give eventually.

Firstly beyond northern Maine, New England doesn’t have many true rural areas, it’s mostly a combination of cities, suburbs, and exurbs. Think about how relatively close together majour cities are too relative to other areas of the country. In Connecticut for example you hard Hartford, New Port, Bridgeport, Stamford all in a relatively close proximity. This makes the GOP’s task tricky because the cities will always be able to outvote exurbs and “rurals”

And yes, like the south some of it is cultural; the main southern states that have been changing politically have been doing so because of growth and cities now dominate, republicans still do amazing in rural areas (GA is a prime example). In New England, the only state rn where you can make this argument is Maine because Northern Maine is much more akin to the rural Midwest than New England in many ways, plus there is strong evidence to suggest generational replacement in the state favored Rs.

In all the other New England states, we aren’t really seeing a rise in any prominent R communities and infact growth is mostly constrained to liberal areas, suggesting long term the region will stay liberal. Even in Maine the coast is growing much faster than upstate which is generally shrinking.

So yes, for the same reason MS isn’t competitive and will unlikely be for a long time, CT and RI aren’t competitive even if they may seem so based on demographics alone.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Also since Illinois was mentioned, I think Hawaii is state that could swing to the right. Hawaii is not that culturally liberal.

Plus it’s very homogenous, making it easier for a large rightwards shift to happen