Could a Republican make Vermont and/or the Black Belt competitive?

[WalterWhite]

In this current iteration of the Republican Party, no

However, Democrats should not take these regions for granted. One of the biggest demographic divides in American politics is the urban-rural divide; urban areas vote Democratic, and rural areas vote Republican. However, Democrats are still dominant in some rural areas across the United States.

Vermont/Western Massachusetts is a part of the country that, demographically speaking, SHOULD be Republican territory; this part of the country is mostly rural. However, Democrats dominate here; Democrats have won western MA ever since 1988 and Vermont since 1992. The Black Belt is another part of the country that, despite being heavily rural, votes overwhelmingly Democratic.

Obviously, there are reasons these areas vote the way they do. Vermont and Western MA are very liberal, and the Black Belt has a high African-American population; these groups generally speaking vote Democratic in presidential elections.

However, in the past, other rural regions of the country were thought of as being similarly Democratic. As recently as 2000, rural Southwest Pennsylvania was a Democratic stronghold; now it is a Republican stronghold. Southern West Virginia was also considered a Democratic stronghold at that time; now the opposite is true. Rural Eastern Iowa was considered Democratic territory until 2012; now these rural counties vote overwhelmingly Republican. Until 2020, the Rio Grande Valley in Texas was considered a Democratic stronghold; Trump flipped Zapata County for the first time in about 100 years and made Duval and Starr Counties competitive. These regions had their reasons for voting Democratic: the counties in Pennsylvania and West Virginia had large numbers of blue-collar workers; the counties in Iowa had large numbers of farmers; the counties in Texas had large numbers of Hispanics. However, despite these groups generally voting Democratic, the increase in Republican support amongst rural voters brought these counties into the GOP column.

Who is to say that Vermont and the Black Belt are not on the chopping block for the Republican Party? There might be a Republican candidate who does so strongly amongst rural voters that they win/reduce the margin in these regions. In the current iteration of the GOP, there is not. However, who is to say that such a candidate will not come along in the future?

[Хahar 🤔]

Who is to say anything, really? The future is unknowable.

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

However, in the past, other rural regions of the country were thought of as being similarly Democratic. As recently as 2000, rural Southwest Pennsylvania was a Democratic stronghold; now it is a Republican stronghold. Southern West Virginia was also considered a Democratic stronghold at that time; now the opposite is true. Rural Eastern Iowa was considered Democratic territory until 2012; now these rural counties vote overwhelmingly Republican. Until 2020, the Rio Grande Valley in Texas was considered a Democratic stronghold; Trump flipped Zapata County for the first time in about 100 years and made Duval and Starr Counties competitive. These regions had their reasons for voting Democratic: the counties in Pennsylvania and West Virginia had large numbers of blue-collar workers; the counties in Iowa had large numbers of farmers; the counties in Texas had large numbers of Hispanics. However, despite these groups generally voting Democratic, the increase in Republican support amongst rural voters brought these counties into the GOP column.

I know you might be referring to the Driftless Region (the neighboring part of WI has also shifted significantly R in recent cycles), but...

Iowa isn’t becoming a new Missouri , it’s becoming what Iowa was before the farm crises . Before the farm crises Iowa was a ruby red state that voted more republican from 1856-1984 than Kansas did as it only voted Dem 5 times until 1984 . From 1988-2012 it voted democratic 6 times so it’s not really a traditional democratic state at all .

It’s literally just a Dukakis/Bill Clinton/Obama dem state

[Frodo]

Republicans will eventually appeal to black voters (particularly rural black voters) based upon a shared cultural conservatism when racial appeals no longer avail them as their white base in the state gradually shrinks.  And logically, Mississippi will be the first state in which that will happen which I think should be later this decade as the baby boomers exit the stage...  

[WalterWhite]

Republicans will eventually appeal to black voters (particularly rural black voters) based upon a shared cultural conservatism when racial appeals will no longer avail them as their white base in the state gradually shrinks.  And logically, Mississippi will be the first state in which that will happen which I think should be later this decade as the baby boomers exit the stage...  

The GOP would also have to shift its economic message for that, though. African-Americans started voting for the Democrats BECAUSE OF the New Deal.

[Frodo]

Republicans will eventually appeal to black voters (particularly rural black voters) based upon a shared cultural conservatism when racial appeals will no longer avail them as their white base in the state gradually shrinks.  And logically, Mississippi will be the first state in which that will happen which I think should be later this decade as the baby boomers exit the stage...  

The GOP would also have to shift its economic message for that, though. African-Americans started voting for the Democrats BECAUSE OF the New Deal.

That is certainly within the realm of possibility.  They just have to become a (genuinely) more Trumpist party at least in Mississippi, loosening election rules (that were designed to lower black turnout) in the process, following Kentucky's lead.  If they can do that, I can see them ruling the state for at least as long as Democrats did after the end of Reconstruction.  And you can extrapolate what could happen in other states of the former Confederacy...  

[Death of a Salesman]

Republicans will eventually appeal to black voters (particularly rural black voters) based upon a shared cultural conservatism when racial appeals no longer avail them as their white base in the state gradually shrinks.  And logically, Mississippi will be the first state in which that will happen which I think should be later this decade as the baby boomers exit the stage...  

This is a common myth on this site, but it's not at all true. MS is actually becoming whiter relative to the country as time goes on.

What the TFR numbers actually look like:

Image Link

From that chart, white TFR exceeds non-white TFR in ID, IN, KS, KY, NH, NJ, NY, UT, WV, & VT.
tied in MI, MS, MT & VA.

ID, IN, KS, KY, UT & WV are all safe R, so this has no real impact. NH and VT are so white that this shouldn't result in any shifts. But in NY and NJ this gap (which is probably growing) could result in a GOP trend over the coming decades (which is seemingly already happening for other reasons).

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

(Reposting this Ramaswamy discussion here because it seems relevant to the premise of this thread)

I think what some people are missing here (including potentially Ramaswamy himself) is that the GOP isn't a religious party so much as it is a Christian party. Even if his Hindu faith lends into his conservatism, it doesn't necessarily make him more appealing to the median GOP voter. There are some sections of the right that want to build a closer alliance with non-Christian faiths, seeing minority groups as better long-term conduits for conservatism than the ever-secularizing white majority. But that's mostly limited to very intellectual circles, whereas the median GOP voter is more attracted to the Christian identity more than religion in general.

And for that matter, people of non-Christian faiths don't vote Republican either, including most Hindus. Is a socially conservative Hindu more likely to vote Republican than an atheist of Indian origin? Of course, but both of those people statistically vote for Democrats, and the socially conservative Hindu has a higher chance of voting Democrat than a socially moderate Christian.

On the long term, I can actually imagine a pan-religious coalition in American politics, assuming the current demographic trend continues - that is, declining numbers of Christians, and increasing numbers of both irreligious people and those of non-Christian faiths. But Ramaswamy's way ahead of his time on this.

A lot of the bolded part has to do with race. But almost every Old World diaspora community (in the US) that isn't religiously monolithic exhibits Christian-non-Christian polarization in that self-identifying and practicing Christians seem to be more R/less D than said diaspora group as a whole. More generally, communities that have social cleavages between different sects of Christianity also seem to exhibit Protestant-Catholic polarization (Protestants more R than Catholics).

Would be interesting to see the Abdullah vs Caucasian LGBT members polarization on Atlas play out in real-life, although it's difficult for me to imagine that overshadowing kitchen table issues and the extant social divides that bronz4141 pointedly belabored.

[Ragnaroni]

In this current iteration of the Republican Party, no

However, Democrats should not take these regions for granted. One of the biggest demographic divides in American politics is the urban-rural divide; urban areas vote Democratic, and rural areas vote Republican. However, Democrats are still dominant in some rural areas across the United States.

Vermont/Western Massachusetts is a part of the country that, demographically speaking, SHOULD be Republican territory; this part of the country is mostly rural. However, Democrats dominate here; Democrats have won western MA ever since 1988 and Vermont since 1992. The Black Belt is another part of the country that, despite being heavily rural, votes overwhelmingly Democratic.

Obviously, there are reasons these areas vote the way they do. Vermont and Western MA are very liberal, and the Black Belt has a high African-American population; these groups generally speaking vote Democratic in presidential elections.

However, in the past, other rural regions of the country were thought of as being similarly Democratic. As recently as 2000, rural Southwest Pennsylvania was a Democratic stronghold; now it is a Republican stronghold. Southern West Virginia was also considered a Democratic stronghold at that time; now the opposite is true. Rural Eastern Iowa was considered Democratic territory until 2012; now these rural counties vote overwhelmingly Republican. Until 2020, the Rio Grande Valley in Texas was considered a Democratic stronghold; Trump flipped Zapata County for the first time in about 100 years and made Duval and Starr Counties competitive. These regions had their reasons for voting Democratic: the counties in Pennsylvania and West Virginia had large numbers of blue-collar workers; the counties in Iowa had large numbers of farmers; the counties in Texas had large numbers of Hispanics. However, despite these groups generally voting Democratic, the increase in Republican support amongst rural voters brought these counties into the GOP column.

Who is to say that Vermont and the Black Belt are not on the chopping block for the Republican Party? There might be a Republican candidate who does so strongly amongst rural voters that they win/reduce the margin in these regions. In the current iteration of the GOP, there is not. However, who is to say that such a candidate will not come along in the future?

My biggest question is : is it worth the time and money? Winning MA and/or VT is such a long shot its not even funny. These voters arent enough to swing a state, flip a governorship or win a congressional (VT AL?). We've all seen how the popular vote, while it looks good isn't as important that the Electoral College.

As for the Black Belt, my opinion is different, the Republicans could make gains there, the party is more and more multiracial and rural Southern blacks aren't exactly progressive urbanites. Gaining with these voters could save us GA for a cycle or two and make NC safer and give us a higher floor in VA. If we make gains in the Black Belt, we may have some way of reaching urban blacks, however this is unlikely. Money should be used to make the Black Belt more prosperous by Republican Governors. We will never win the black vote but we can take more of it.

[Frodo]

Republicans will eventually appeal to black voters (particularly rural black voters) based upon a shared cultural conservatism when racial appeals no longer avail them as their white base in the state gradually shrinks.  And logically, Mississippi will be the first state in which that will happen which I think should be later this decade as the baby boomers exit the stage...  

This is a common myth on this site, but it's not at all true. MS is actually becoming whiter relative to the country as time goes on.

What the TFR numbers actually look like:

Image Link

From that chart, white TFR exceeds non-white TFR in ID, IN, KS, KY, NH, NJ, NY, UT, WV, & VT.
tied in MI, MS, MT & VA.

ID, IN, KS, KY, UT & WV are all safe R, so this has no real impact. NH and VT are so white that this shouldn't result in any shifts. But in NY and NJ this gap (which is probably growing) could result in a GOP trend over the coming decades (which is seemingly already happening for other reasons).

I meant that in the sense that (white) baby boomers are the most reliable generation of Republicans in Mississippi, given they are the most conservative.  Future generations of whites in the state don't seem like they will be as in lockstep with the Mississippi GOP, therefore being less reliable voters compared to their elders.  Which is why I am suggesting it would wise for Mississippi Republicans later this decade to reach out to rural blacks in the Delta to make up the difference as the baby boomers pass on.    

[Death of a Salesman]

Republicans will eventually appeal to black voters (particularly rural black voters) based upon a shared cultural conservatism when racial appeals no longer avail them as their white base in the state gradually shrinks.  And logically, Mississippi will be the first state in which that will happen which I think should be later this decade as the baby boomers exit the stage...  

This is a common myth on this site, but it's not at all true. MS is actually becoming whiter relative to the country as time goes on.

What the TFR numbers actually look like:

Image Link

From that chart, white TFR exceeds non-white TFR in ID, IN, KS, KY, NH, NJ, NY, UT, WV, & VT.
tied in MI, MS, MT & VA.

ID, IN, KS, KY, UT & WV are all safe R, so this has no real impact. NH and VT are so white that this shouldn't result in any shifts. But in NY and NJ this gap (which is probably growing) could result in a GOP trend over the coming decades (which is seemingly already happening for other reasons).

I meant that in the sense that (white) baby boomers are the most reliable generation of Republicans in Mississippi, given they are the most conservative.  Future generations of whites in the state don't seem like they will be as in lockstep with the Mississippi GOP, therefore being less reliable voters compared to their elders.  Which is why I am suggesting it would wise for Mississippi Republicans later this decade to reach out to rural blacks in the Delta to make up the difference as the baby boomers pass on.    

Young white voters are actually more Republican in voter registration than older white voters in Louisiana.

[DS0816]

…The future is unknowable.

The following is knowable:

Every person will die.

(No one gets to live forever.)