If this is the 2036 Map would would it tell you about the Political Alignment
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 09:58:35 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  If this is the 2036 Map would would it tell you about the Political Alignment
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: If this is the 2036 Map would would it tell you about the Political Alignment  (Read 3450 times)
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 20, 2018, 01:26:16 AM »

Logged
CookieDamage
cookiedamage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,998


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 20, 2018, 03:41:50 AM »


This looks like it's a map from the 60s or 70s. If a Democrat in 2036 is winning Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana, they are not gonna be winning California, New York, or Vermont.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 20, 2018, 01:44:32 PM »


This looks like it's a map from the 60s or 70s. If a Democrat in 2036 is winning Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana, they are not gonna be winning California, New York, or Vermont.

Not really

TN: Nashville
LA: Flips just like MS would
AK: Parties not being defined by social issues as much


Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 20, 2018, 02:37:17 PM »


This looks like it's a map from the 60s or 70s. If a Democrat in 2036 is winning Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana, they are not gonna be winning California, New York, or Vermont.

I call B.S., at least on NY and CA.  The idea that CA and NY are voting Democratic only because the GOP is too "redneck" for them to tolerate such a party is overblown; neither is a bastion for economic conservatism either (in the slightest), and both have large minority populations.
Logged
WestVegeta
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 364
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: -2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 20, 2018, 08:10:22 PM »

The Democrats likely went full economic populist, likely having nominated Sherrod Brown or Steve Bullock in 2020. The Republicans took the opportunity to purge their Trumpist strains, leaving behind a party decidely similar to the CDU, but perhaps less overtly Christian. With their oxymoronic defense of social security and advocacy for lower taxes, they manage to pull an overburdened (and largely white) population in Florida into their column for the foreseeable future. The Democrats have a coalition similar to the '60s, but now with a larger amount of minorities capable of preventing the New Deal Coalition from fracturing.
Logged
CookieDamage
cookiedamage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,998


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 22, 2018, 06:33:57 AM »


This looks like it's a map from the 60s or 70s. If a Democrat in 2036 is winning Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana, they are not gonna be winning California, New York, or Vermont.

I call B.S., at least on NY and CA.  The idea that CA and NY are voting Democratic only because the GOP is too "redneck" for them to tolerate such a party is overblown; neither is a bastion for economic conservatism either (in the slightest), and both have large minority populations.

Didn't say anything about NY or CA voting Dem because the GOP is too white trash. You just admitted that neither is a bastion for economic conservatism and both have large minority pops. That's why I reasoned they wouldn't vote along with Arkansas or Louisiana. Those states are not liberal in the slightest while California and NY voters are liberal, at least where most of the votes are.
Logged
Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner
Jalawest2
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,481


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 22, 2018, 11:25:46 AM »


This looks like it's a map from the 60s or 70s. If a Democrat in 2036 is winning Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana, they are not gonna be winning California, New York, or Vermont.

I call B.S., at least on NY and CA.  The idea that CA and NY are voting Democratic only because the GOP is too "redneck" for them to tolerate such a party is overblown; neither is a bastion for economic conservatism either (in the slightest), and both have large minority populations.

Didn't say anything about NY or CA voting Dem because the GOP is too white trash. You just admitted that neither is a bastion for economic conservatism and both have large minority pops. That's why I reasoned they wouldn't vote along with Arkansas or Louisiana. Those states are not liberal in the slightest while California and NY voters are liberal, at least where most of the votes are.
Boy, do I have an election for you.
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1996&off=0&elect=0&f=0
Two of them, actually.
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1992&off=0&elect=0&f=0
Logged
CookieDamage
cookiedamage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,998


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 23, 2018, 10:48:02 AM »


This looks like it's a map from the 60s or 70s. If a Democrat in 2036 is winning Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana, they are not gonna be winning California, New York, or Vermont.

I call B.S., at least on NY and CA.  The idea that CA and NY are voting Democratic only because the GOP is too "redneck" for them to tolerate such a party is overblown; neither is a bastion for economic conservatism either (in the slightest), and both have large minority populations.

Didn't say anything about NY or CA voting Dem because the GOP is too white trash. You just admitted that neither is a bastion for economic conservatism and both have large minority pops. That's why I reasoned they wouldn't vote along with Arkansas or Louisiana. Those states are not liberal in the slightest while California and NY voters are liberal, at least where most of the votes are.
Boy, do I have an election for you.
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1996&off=0&elect=0&f=0
Two of them, actually.
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1992&off=0&elect=0&f=0

From decades ago.
Logged
Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner
Jalawest2
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,481


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 23, 2018, 01:45:20 PM »


This looks like it's a map from the 60s or 70s. If a Democrat in 2036 is winning Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana, they are not gonna be winning California, New York, or Vermont.

I call B.S., at least on NY and CA.  The idea that CA and NY are voting Democratic only because the GOP is too "redneck" for them to tolerate such a party is overblown; neither is a bastion for economic conservatism either (in the slightest), and both have large minority populations.

Didn't say anything about NY or CA voting Dem because the GOP is too white trash. You just admitted that neither is a bastion for economic conservatism and both have large minority pops. That's why I reasoned they wouldn't vote along with Arkansas or Louisiana. Those states are not liberal in the slightest while California and NY voters are liberal, at least where most of the votes are.
Boy, do I have an election for you.
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1996&off=0&elect=0&f=0
Two of them, actually.
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1992&off=0&elect=0&f=0

From decades ago.
1996 is as far from 2016 as 2036.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 24, 2018, 12:24:33 AM »


This looks like it's a map from the 60s or 70s. If a Democrat in 2036 is winning Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana, they are not gonna be winning California, New York, or Vermont.

I call B.S., at least on NY and CA.  The idea that CA and NY are voting Democratic only because the GOP is too "redneck" for them to tolerate such a party is overblown; neither is a bastion for economic conservatism either (in the slightest), and both have large minority populations.

Didn't say anything about NY or CA voting Dem because the GOP is too white trash. You just admitted that neither is a bastion for economic conservatism and both have large minority pops. That's why I reasoned they wouldn't vote along with Arkansas or Louisiana. Those states are not liberal in the slightest while California and NY voters are liberal, at least where most of the votes are.
Boy, do I have an election for you.
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1996&off=0&elect=0&f=0
Two of them, actually.
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1992&off=0&elect=0&f=0

From decades ago.
1996 is as far from 2016 as 2036.

Indeed and a lot can happen in 20 years time. Just twelve years ago, both NY and CA had Republican Governors, which is now deemed completely impossible.

Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 24, 2018, 12:46:54 AM »
« Edited: August 24, 2018, 12:50:43 AM by President North Carolina Yankee »

A couple of things stand out about this map, and yes it is very plausible, though some things are more likely than others.

1. It requires minorities to behave differently based on region. Like say 15% of African Americans in ILL and NJ, but single digits in the Deep South with massive Democratic intensity and turnout. IT is possible where former GOP control of the Deep South, causes such intensity among younger African Americans, meanwhile disenchantment causes a residual minority of slightly larger proportion in the Northern cities to defect to the GOP. A lot of variables at play, particularly regarding the class economically of the defectors and what issue mix the GOP has.

1.5: Republicans have to start winning Asians

2. Requires a turnaround with college educated whites, at least in the Midwest (which is ironically the easiest place to do it and place most likely for it to happen). The reason for this is 1. Germans, 2. Catholics, 3. Higher Residual Republicanism, and 4 Less likelihood of a generational revolution (though such is likely in play in Chicago Suburbs by this point).

3. Requires the GOP to keep winning non-College educated whites at strong levels.

I don't think TN, KY, WV, MO, and AR move into this by natural demographic evolution, at least not by 2036 though ironically I have a similar map that has the Democrats winning all of these states, plus OH, FL, AL and TX among others, as a part of a victory scenario. I think it could happen in this scenario if you had a Democratic candidate who was very charismatic and from one of those states like maybe Tennessee and probably a Governor as opposed to a Senator, which is how my scenario does it.

This is not a new coalition for the GOP, but the trick is how to keep a predominantly Northern coalition of college and non college whites under the same roof with a majority of Asians and 15% of the Northern African-Americans in the 2030's. It is very close to Ford's 1976 coalition.  

I don't think it is as simple as dropping Trumpism, I think it requires an amalgamation of Trumpist elements with a set of more standard GOP positions. We are starting to see candidates who are trying to accomplish this and they will likely be the most successful ones going forward, but naturally 2018 is a bad year to pull this off in.
Logged
ملكة كرينجيتوك
khuzifenq
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,314
United States


P P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 25, 2018, 01:18:52 AM »

^I would think the Republican Party would be getting more than 15% of the black vote in 2036 if they're relying on non-Southern African-American votes to win national elections.

By what margin would the GOP be winning Asian/Pacific Islanders in this scenario?
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 25, 2018, 01:28:39 AM »

^I would think the Republican Party would be getting more than 15% of the black vote in 2036 if they're relying on non-Southern African-American votes to win national elections.

By what margin would the GOP be winning Asian/Pacific Islanders in this scenario?


I think that would be the ceiling, it would take a while to get above that.

Its never just one piece of the puzzle though. All fit together to weave a victory map and so you would have to combine some higher percentage with Asians, college educated whites and even Hispanics in order to flip OR and WA. The same goes for NJ, ILL etc.


Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: December 09, 2018, 10:52:47 PM »

"Rockefeller Republicans" and white people of the Mountain and Deep South have never been politically compatible. Southern white have always been anti-capitalist, and the "Rockefeller Republicans" that ended up drifting into the Democratic party have seen markets and  free trade desirable. Southern whites have been statistically hostile to non-white minorities far beyond what the Rockefeller Republicans showed. Carter did well in the Mountain and Deep South (and was the last Democratic Presidential nominee  to do so); the transition that took place from D to R among white Southerners reversed slightly for Clinton in 1992 and 1996 (but Clinton lost Georgia in 1996 and no Democratic nominee for President has since won Georgia) and accelerated under the candidacies of Gore, Kerry, and especially Obama. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton won a raft of states that typically were full of Rockefeller Republicans as they started going D. 
Logged
LAKISYLVANIA
Lakigigar
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,165
Belgium


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -4.78

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 13, 2018, 10:49:02 AM »
« Edited: December 13, 2018, 10:56:25 AM by Lakigigar »


Democratic Party going economically left-wing, keeping AA turnout levels, and politics generally being less polarized once again (i don't understand why Rhode Island and Connecticut don't flip in this scenario)
Republican Party moving to the left on social issues (center / center-left), accepting climate change, improving standing among hispanic turn-outs



Map would IMO be similar like this in that scenario.
Logged
LabourJersey
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,148
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 15, 2018, 12:40:26 PM »

I can't imagine New Jersey voting GOP if New York still votes Democratic.

The only reason why New Jersey was a Republican-leaning swing state in the 1960s/70s was because that was before the large amounts of immigration in the 80s/90s that turned the state Democratic. Coupled with the education split in modern politics I can't see the GOP winning the state in a federal election in the next 15-20 years.
Logged
catographer
Megameow
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,498
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 17, 2018, 08:46:44 PM »

Jimmy Carter is still kickin' at 112.
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 0.251 seconds with 12 queries.