Long term, what red states do Democrats have potential in?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:26:45 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Long term, what red states do Democrats have potential in?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Long term, what red states do Democrats have potential in?  (Read 1255 times)
GregTheGreat657
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,920
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.77, S: -1.04

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 02, 2022, 12:55:23 PM »

TX is one
Logged
Roll Roons
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,983
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 02, 2022, 01:13:04 PM »
« Edited: July 02, 2022, 01:16:24 PM by Roll Roons »

Alaska, Utah, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska all seem like possibilities.

I wonder if there's potential in any other Southern states.
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,564


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 02, 2022, 02:23:49 PM »

I agree with Texas, Alaska, Utah, Kansas, and Montana.

One longshot possibility is that West Virginia could become Lean R or Likely R within the next three or four decades, if exurban development for the DMV reaches the north Shenandoah Valley in Jefferson and Berkeley Counties (which, considering it's already consumed Frederick County...) and population loss in the rest of the state doesn't slow down.

I think that's quite a stretch; there's still quite a large gap between where Suburbs end in Loudon County and WV and frankly WV is too far out to realistically be part of the metro.
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,564


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 02, 2022, 02:36:46 PM »

Texas - This one is pretty obvious but there are several large cities that are rapidly growing, Democrats gaining in the suburbs, and relatively low turnout already among key Dem constiuencies. Even if Rs make gains with Hispanics, that likely just stalls the inevitable

Alaska - Alaska is a very small state in terms of population and Dems have been making some pretty big gains in Anchorage and Fairbanks. It's really "exurbs" with heavy oil industry influence keeping the state so R but the oil industry is overall on the decline. Furthermore, Dem gains with travel communities which there are a few of in AK def helps

Kansas/Nebraska - I lumped these 2 together because both states a very simillar geopolitically, Nebraska just a few points to the right due to Shawnee being so liberal in KS. In both states, growth has largely been concentrated to the cities and college communities which we have seen get a lot bluer. Furthermore, both states are relatively urban in teh sense most of the population in concentrated in these cities, it's just the rural areas vote so heavily R they currently more than cancel out these votes.

As I said in another thread, I don't think this is something that will happen by "default", especially since Nebraska is currently pretty R and it'd require Dems to gain a lot more ground in Wititcha where their gains have been less impressive, but still something to keep an eye on.

Montana - I feel like this is a bit cliche at this point since it feels like Montana is getting redder but if one of Missoula/Helena/Bozeman booms, it could really have an imapct given how relatively small the state is population wise. Furthermore, Dems currently have a lot of upside in Billings

Wyoming - Simillar reason to MT. It would likely take a long time, but it's not impossible to see something Laramie become akin to Fort Collins. This is the smallest state in the country population wise so again it would take less than you think, though still unlikely imo

Utah - LDS is losing influence, the population is heavily concentrated in the valley which is slowly but surely become more of a "normal" educated metro in the sense it's not just full of LDS folks. The state has shifted very hard left recently and while some of that could be due to Trump, I think a lot of it is perminanent. As some here have said, Utah is like Colorado with LDS, which is kinda true to some degree.

After that, i think most R states on the eastern half of the US, despite some having growing metros, just have rurals that are too dense to ever be outvoted and/or countertrends with depopulating black populations or retirees. Sure Indianapolis metro has a lot of upsides for Dems but it's only 1/5th of the state or so and given there are few other Dem communities in the state of substance, it's hard to see it flipping the state.

I mean we've seen this in Ohio too where Dems have really crashed despite Columbus.
Logged
kwabbit
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,759


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 02, 2022, 02:53:42 PM »

Montana is overrated for this. It became more Republican in the Trump era. Its voters are elastic so 2008 Obama came close, but it's like 60% Whites without a college degree.

Texas is the obvious answer, but it's somewhat amusing that this would happen because of educated White Northerners moving into Dallas and Austin rather than the Hispanic population becoming rabidly Dem like was once thought.

Utah basically consists of a single educated urban conglomeration so it stands to trend D sharply. Kansas and Nebraska are also surprisingly urbanized and educated.

Alaska is diversifying pretty quickly too, it could be a sleeper.

Most states have some quality that makes people think they could become Democratic. See how this forum talks about Tennessee. Most of the states that could have become Dem have. Georgia, Virginia, Colorado all have realized their trendz already. North Carolina was false hope. Texas, Florida, and North Carolina are the only states that could be contested in a reasonably neutral environment this decade that Biden didn't win.
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,564


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 02, 2022, 08:03:39 PM »

Montana is overrated for this. It became more Republican in the Trump era. Its voters are elastic so 2008 Obama came close, but it's like 60% Whites without a college degree.

Texas is the obvious answer, but it's somewhat amusing that this would happen because of educated White Northerners moving into Dallas and Austin rather than the Hispanic population becoming rabidly Dem like was once thought.

Utah basically consists of a single educated urban conglomeration so it stands to trend D sharply. Kansas and Nebraska are also surprisingly urbanized and educated.

Alaska is diversifying pretty quickly too, it could be a sleeper.

Most states have some quality that makes people think they could become Democratic. See how this forum talks about Tennessee. Most of the states that could have become Dem have. Georgia, Virginia, Colorado all have realized their trendz already. North Carolina was false hope. Texas, Florida, and North Carolina are the only states that could be contested in a reasonably neutral environment this decade that Biden didn't win.

I agree with this post, but I disagree with the notion that NC is a "lost hope"

Dems still got very favorable swings out of the metros like Charlotte and Raleigh, more than they probably could've asked for.

However, unlike states like VA, CO, and GA, the state still has notable countertrends due to how dense the western appalachian part of the state is, keeping the shift relatively neutral overall. A state like Colorado on the other hand is almost entirely urban/suburban communities, many of which have high educational attainment.

If you snipped off everything West of Charlotte, NC would actually be nearly identical to VA politically, geographically, and demographically.

It is entirely possible Republicans have reached their limit in growing Appalachia and urban shifts overpower it. It's also possible we start to see countershifts within urban areas causing the state to shift right as a whole. I do think NC will eventually begin to swing one way or another though as the narrow balance that has kept it's shifts neutral are unlikely to continue forever.
Logged
If my soul was made of stone
discovolante
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,261
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.13, S: -5.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 02, 2022, 08:24:06 PM »

Montana is pretty clearly moving out of its perpetual near-miss phase that had lasted since about 1960. The ancestral labor outposts have faded heavily in the past decade, the strength of the Native vote is in decline, Helena can't quite commit to the bit, and Billings and Great Falls put out far too many GOP raw votes between them. I'm sure that Steve Bullock's failed attempts to nationalize his brand haven't helped in this regard.

Alaska, Kansas, and Texas are probably the safest choices; Utah has real movement but it probably a generation behind those three.
Logged
Sol
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,051
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 03, 2022, 06:51:20 AM »

I agree with this post, but I disagree with the notion that NC is a "lost hope"

Dems still got very favorable swings out of the metros like Charlotte and Raleigh, more than they probably could've asked for.

However, unlike states like VA, CO, and GA, the state still has notable countertrends due to how dense the western appalachian part of the state is, keeping the shift relatively neutral overall. A state like Colorado on the other hand is almost entirely urban/suburban communities, many of which have high educational attainment.

If you snipped off everything West of Charlotte, NC would actually be nearly identical to VA politically, geographically, and demographically.

It is entirely possible Republicans have reached their limit in growing Appalachia and urban shifts overpower it. It's also possible we start to see countershifts within urban areas causing the state to shift right as a whole. I do think NC will eventually begin to swing one way or another though as the narrow balance that has kept it's shifts neutral are unlikely to continue forever.

The swings which prevented NC from voting for Biden weren't concentrated in the Western part of the state:

Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 03, 2022, 07:44:53 AM »
« Edited: July 03, 2022, 06:38:46 PM by Torie »

Interesting chats about the states. Thank you. One thing I wonder about, is that the existing trends at some point make the GOP non competitive as a party in the bulk of the states, and for POTUS. That puts another source of pressure on both parties. The Dems sluff off the voters they don't need to push an agenda entailing less compromise, and the GOP needs to tack on some issues that cost it too many votes, say e.g. at the moment, opposition to same sex marriage.  

And lurking over everything is the gorilla of globalization in all its aspects, which had such a substantial impact over time on the voting habits of higher income, higher educated whites and lower educated working class whites (e.g., the collapse of private sector unions).  Maybe with the fascist/nationalistic tendencies or whatever you want to call it of Russia and China, the bloom will fade some on relatively unfettered global "free" markets.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 03, 2022, 02:44:31 PM »

I agree with this post, but I disagree with the notion that NC is a "lost hope"

Dems still got very favorable swings out of the metros like Charlotte and Raleigh, more than they probably could've asked for.

However, unlike states like VA, CO, and GA, the state still has notable countertrends due to how dense the western appalachian part of the state is, keeping the shift relatively neutral overall. A state like Colorado on the other hand is almost entirely urban/suburban communities, many of which have high educational attainment.

If you snipped off everything West of Charlotte, NC would actually be nearly identical to VA politically, geographically, and demographically.

It is entirely possible Republicans have reached their limit in growing Appalachia and urban shifts overpower it. It's also possible we start to see countershifts within urban areas causing the state to shift right as a whole. I do think NC will eventually begin to swing one way or another though as the narrow balance that has kept it's shifts neutral are unlikely to continue forever.

The swings which prevented NC from voting for Biden weren't concentrated in the Western part of the state:



Interesting.  Resembles the largest shifts to Youngkin being in Southside VA, not Appalachia.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,698
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 04, 2022, 04:14:47 PM »

The problem with Nebraska is that it's going to lose a district in 2030 so even if NE-02 flips before then and is a pretty consistent D district (likely) it won't be winnable after a ton of rural areas get added. Sure an Omaha to Lincoln district could be drawn but that's basically a D gerrymander and not happening.

However Idaho should gain a district the same Census and that might open up a pretty solid D seat around Boise.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,698
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 04, 2022, 04:19:56 PM »
« Edited: July 04, 2022, 06:57:27 PM by The sun fell down again last night on my anger »

I actually have hope for North Carolina, for a pretty clear reason: It's a state where Republicans used to rely on an urban vote that's rapidly disintegrating. Charlotte used to have a notable large triangle shaped area from downtown to the southern border that voted solidly Republican. In 2020 it was almost all gone, just two disconnected Trump precincts remained. And then there's the incredible R collapse in the Raleigh area, hard to believe that Bush both times and Dole carried Wake County with how it votes now...not to mention Biden won Cary by a 2:1 margin, a Democrat won an affluent white suburb in the South by that margin, now that's mindblowing.

Some might say that's cancelled out by swings in the east, but most of the rural east has a notable black population, so there's a floor to how far Democrats can fall, and they're pretty close to it in most areas. It's true that rural black areas tend to empty out even faster than rural white areas, but that's still a slower process, especially considering how many of those black voters are just moving to Raleigh or Durham or Charlotte anyway.
Logged
cvparty
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,100
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 04, 2022, 05:31:09 PM »

The problem with Nebraska is that it's going to lose a district in 2030 so even if NE-02 flips before then and is a pretty consistent D district (likely) it won't be winnable after a ton of rural areas get added. Sure an Omaha to Lincoln district could be drawn but that's basically a D gerrymander and not happening.

However Idaho should gain a district the same Census and that might open up a pretty solid D seat around Boise.
I don't think it's going to lose a district anytime soon? But even if that were the case, over half of the added areas would come from suburban Sarpy alone. It would only be Trump +3 in 2020
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,698
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 04, 2022, 05:34:34 PM »

The problem with Nebraska is that it's going to lose a district in 2030 so even if NE-02 flips before then and is a pretty consistent D district (likely) it won't be winnable after a ton of rural areas get added. Sure an Omaha to Lincoln district could be drawn but that's basically a D gerrymander and not happening.

However Idaho should gain a district the same Census and that might open up a pretty solid D seat around Boise.
I don't think it's going to lose a district anytime soon? But even if that were the case, over half of the added areas would come from suburban Sarpy alone. It would only be Trump +3 in 2020
It's the least populated 3 district state. In fact it's right ahead of Idaho in population. Idaho will definitely overtake it by 2030. Although Nebraska's population growth was exactly that of the country at large, so if it continues that it may not lose it and both it and Idaho will be three district states.

Looks like both Nebraska and Idaho will overtake New Mexico though...maybe that'll be the state to lose one instead.
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,464
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 04, 2022, 06:45:45 PM »

If you count any state Trump carried last time, North Carolina without question.  Among states he carried by over 5%, Texas and Alaska.
Logged
Sol
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,051
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 04, 2022, 06:58:38 PM »

If you count any state Trump carried last time, North Carolina without question.  Among states he carried by over 5%, Texas and Alaska.

I think you have to add Florida too. Even if it doesn't seem that promising it's easier to imagine a scenario where FL votes for a Democratic presidential candidate than Alaska tbh.
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,464
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 04, 2022, 09:12:09 PM »

If you count any state Trump carried last time, North Carolina without question.  Among states he carried by over 5%, Texas and Alaska.

I think you have to add Florida too. Even if it doesn't seem that promising it's easier to imagine a scenario where FL votes for a Democratic presidential candidate than Alaska tbh.

Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,698
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 05, 2022, 12:11:26 AM »

FWIW I actually probably overestimated how badly losing a district would hurt the Democrats in NE-02, I drew a two-district map and if NE-02 becomes basically a sliver of counties across the Iowa border it's only about Trump +4, considering that's based on 2020 Census numbers and would in 2030 include less rural areas and that Omaha might shift left by then, it'd possibly still be a D-leaning district. Maybe Tilt D.

Meanwhile in Idaho I ended up with a district that Trump still won by 9 points, although it voted only about 4 points for Little. Now that would be a lot closer considering how fast growing that area is and that it possibly might even be a solely Ada County-based district, but still more of a tossup, at least at first.
Logged
The Smiling Face On Your TV
slimey56
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,494
Korea, Democratic People's Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -6.46, S: -7.30

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 05, 2022, 05:20:16 PM »
« Edited: July 05, 2022, 05:23:54 PM by Single Issue Marsh Creek Leak Voter »

Alaska, NC, KS, and MT (white conservative turnout will make it difficult, but hear me out) as Senate seats in those will be A LOT cheaper than TX, FL, UT as long as Romney's around, or IA.
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,564


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 05, 2022, 06:50:45 PM »

The problem with Nebraska is that it's going to lose a district in 2030 so even if NE-02 flips before then and is a pretty consistent D district (likely) it won't be winnable after a ton of rural areas get added. Sure an Omaha to Lincoln district could be drawn but that's basically a D gerrymander and not happening.

However Idaho should gain a district the same Census and that might open up a pretty solid D seat around Boise.
I don't think it's going to lose a district anytime soon? But even if that were the case, over half of the added areas would come from suburban Sarpy alone. It would only be Trump +3 in 2020
It's the least populated 3 district state. In fact it's right ahead of Idaho in population. Idaho will definitely overtake it by 2030. Although Nebraska's population growth was exactly that of the country at large, so if it continues that it may not lose it and both it and Idaho will be three district states.

Looks like both Nebraska and Idaho will overtake New Mexico though...maybe that'll be the state to lose one instead.

Tbf there are only 2 3 district states nationally. Long term, NM and NE are at risk of seat loss but prolly not in 2030 barring dramatic population change. Most potential seat loss will likely come from rust belt states, especially more populus ones and ones that haven’t lost a seat for a cycle or 2. I suspect come 2030, MI, PA, IL, OH, IN, and WI would all be at high risk.

We’ll have to see if the northeast really is rebounding a bit or if 2020 census was a bit of a mirage, but states like CT, RI, and NY could also lose seats.

Rmbr though that in recent census cycles, not all that many seats have had to change just from the country being so large.
Logged
S019
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,253
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -1.39

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 05, 2022, 06:58:35 PM »

Alaska and Texas are the obvious answers (North Carolina and Florida are both obviously purple) and Kansas could happen long term. I think it’s too early to tell if swings in Utah were a Trump exclusive phenomenon, and a random collapse of the Republican vote in a place like Ogden seems very unlikely, so by the time that Utah may be “there” based on demographics, the Republican coalition could change in a way that would keep it from flipping.
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,564


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 05, 2022, 08:12:51 PM »

I agree with this post, but I disagree with the notion that NC is a "lost hope"

Dems still got very favorable swings out of the metros like Charlotte and Raleigh, more than they probably could've asked for.

However, unlike states like VA, CO, and GA, the state still has notable countertrends due to how dense the western appalachian part of the state is, keeping the shift relatively neutral overall. A state like Colorado on the other hand is almost entirely urban/suburban communities, many of which have high educational attainment.

If you snipped off everything West of Charlotte, NC would actually be nearly identical to VA politically, geographically, and demographically.

It is entirely possible Republicans have reached their limit in growing Appalachia and urban shifts overpower it. It's also possible we start to see countershifts within urban areas causing the state to shift right as a whole. I do think NC will eventually begin to swing one way or another though as the narrow balance that has kept it's shifts neutral are unlikely to continue forever.

The swings which prevented NC from voting for Biden weren't concentrated in the Western part of the state:



Not specifically 2016-2020 but just overall. 2020 was prolly the first Pres election in a while where Appalachia trends truly stalled
Logged
Sol
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,051
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: July 05, 2022, 08:37:27 PM »

I agree with this post, but I disagree with the notion that NC is a "lost hope"

Dems still got very favorable swings out of the metros like Charlotte and Raleigh, more than they probably could've asked for.

However, unlike states like VA, CO, and GA, the state still has notable countertrends due to how dense the western appalachian part of the state is, keeping the shift relatively neutral overall. A state like Colorado on the other hand is almost entirely urban/suburban communities, many of which have high educational attainment.

If you snipped off everything West of Charlotte, NC would actually be nearly identical to VA politically, geographically, and demographically.

It is entirely possible Republicans have reached their limit in growing Appalachia and urban shifts overpower it. It's also possible we start to see countershifts within urban areas causing the state to shift right as a whole. I do think NC will eventually begin to swing one way or another though as the narrow balance that has kept it's shifts neutral are unlikely to continue forever.

The swings which prevented NC from voting for Biden weren't concentrated in the Western part of the state:



Not specifically 2016-2020 but just overall. 2020 was prolly the first Pres election in a while where Appalachia trends truly stalled

Shifts in western North Carolina aren't really like West Virginia or Eastern KY--they're relatively mild on account of a relatively weak Democratic party historically in many areas. There was a strong trend in 2016 but in 2012 the trend to Republicans was pretty mild, and then Obama actually got a decently strong swing in most of western North Carolina even if it was technically a Republican trend (things that happen when you get a landslide!)

In any case, the predominant influence of Western North Carolina on NC politics isn't a Republican trend, it's just that it's relatively Republican in general regardless of shifts and trends between election cycles (though Western NC is still to the left of comparable parts of the country, like North Georgia or East Tennessee).
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.071 seconds with 12 queries.