Talk Elections

Starting with the 2010 mid-term election and going on toward the 2022 mid-term elections, do you see any major shifts in party faithful and party base in terms of regions of the country?  Such as, will the center stripe (Dakotas through Texas) and southeast become any less Republican, will the Southwest continue trending Democratic, will the Midwest and Northeast become less Democratic, will the West Coast become less Democratic?

I'm going to wait a bit before answering as I want to see other's responses, first.

I think we will definitely see a shift towards the Democrats in the Southwest for two reasons.

1. Social conservatism loses out to a libertarian streak.  The Religious Right are and things like the Patriot Act are beginning to irritate westerners.  The only issue here is the 2nd Amendment but there are plenty of pro-life Democrats so I don't foresee any problems rustling up some pro-gun ones.
2. The influx of Hispanics who generally vote Democratic.  There could actually be a very sudden shift if any sort of large scale amnesty bill is passed and Democrats immediately put together any kind of Hispanic GOTV effort.

coastal areas of the upper south, Virginia and N.C.  Virginia is pretty much known as Northern VA is trending heavily Democratic.  North Carolina, I see a Democratic shift as well, and their has been a small one.  In this regard look at Metro Charlotte, and Raleigh especially, but also Greensboro, growing rather quickly and becoming more and more Democratic, large amount of northeastern transplants

(trend; red for GOP and blue for Dems; green =  no trend)

(Image Link)

Reignman,

Out of curiosity, why do you see the southeast trending that way so strongly?  Increased Hispanic vote portion?  Because New Mexico and Arizona seem very different to me otherwise.  It would make sense for GA & NC.

I'm also interested on hearing your logic on ME, which really surprised me by being red on the map.

This first paragraph doesn't really make sense to me: I'm not sure what you're asking.

Maine's margin of Kerry over Bush is less than that of Gore and Bush in 2000 if you add Nader to Gore's total (even though Kerry did better in New Hampshire than Gore did).

No offense but that map is ridiculous. There's lots of reasons but I'll just give the most obvious for now: Georgia trending Democratic.

As for your reasoning for Maine, that applies to every state except 3, South Dakota, Vermont and North Carolina, so it's hardly proof of a trend and is a perfect example of what I call the "trend line fallacy". There is no reason to expect a shift from one election to the next to continue indefinitely, for example despite the delusions of GOP hacks, West Virginia is certainly not going to keep voting from now on like it did in 2004.

And one look at our state legislature results (including in 2004, a generally good GOP year) doesn't give much evidence of Minnesota trending Republican (something the Republicans are beginning to realize. I heard about the "Republican trend" in Minnesota nonstop before 2004, not so much after that and no more after 2006.)

Look, I'm sure we can all agree the southwest is trending Democratic. As for the midwest trending GOP and parts of the south trending Democratic, I think that makes sense because of changes in population distribution. If more people move to southern states, I think that will generally make them more Democratic (and less people in midwestern states should generally make them more GOP).

Florida is probably going to trend hard right along with Michigan while Nevada trends hard left.

Florida I agree with you as it seems to be turning back into a Southern state culturely as many of the Jewish retirees are beginning to die off and they are being replaced with retirees from other Red states along with large numbers of Christan evengilicals and rural transplants. also eventully I think the GOP may pick up Nelson's Senate seat and may make other further gains in this state. With MI it is most likely going to go Democratic in 2008 However the Republicans do stand a good chance to pick up the Governor's Mansion in 2010 and maybe we can knock off Stabenow in 2012.

Michigan may be trending to the GOP, but it's definitely doing it slowly.

As for Florida, aren't there probably going to be a higher % of hispanics there in the future?

Yeah but they are coming mainly from Cuba and Cuban American voters are for the most part solidly loyal to the Republican Party and will likely remain so even after Castro's gone.     

When you look at how a state trends, its better to look how it trends based off the national average than head to head one election to the next.  Their was a 3% swing nationally in 04, more if you add Nader to Gore (not to mention the true Nader Gore effect is something like 5-2 Gore over Bush),.  Again you really need to look at the national swing and take that into consideration to see how things are really moving in one state to the next.  Taking national average into consideration the only state that trended more Democratic than Maine between 2000 and 2004 was Vermont, with Oregon and Colorado close by and New Hampshire rounding out the top 5 (not including D.C which would rank just behind Colorado)

For the most part yes.


No, not at all. The results in Georgia over the past few years are the perfect example of why not, Georgia is trending HARD to the Republicans, and the gains are mostly in the fast growing areas. Take a look at the results in Forsyth County over time. That's actually why I found the map so amusing, Georgia is one of the fastest Republican trending states in the country and may soon be more Republican than Texas at this rate.

It's true in a few areas (like NOVA and parts of North Carolina), but hardly true at large.


I have no clue where the idea behind this comes from.

Light blue and light red are happening slowly, darker blue and darker red are happeningly rapidly. In some cases the trend is irrelevant to the electoral college because the state is trending in the direction of its current orientation, though this is mostly true in Republican-trending states.

There are also degrees of trend; Indiana and Montana are slightly trending Democratic, but not nearly so much so as Nevada, which nonetheless is not even comparable to Virginia or Colorado or New Hampshire.

Overall, the trend of increasingly-populous Republican states combined with the slow trend of borderline states to the Democrats continues.

()

()
80% red = trending Dem. rapidly
40% red = trending Dem. slowly
gray = staying put
40% blue = trending Rep. slowly
80% blue = trending Rep. rapidly

Wow is that map WAY wrong...

while some of them are right, maybe the map is a belated April fools joke as a whole??

You need to color Oklahoma green.  We are definitely not trending GOP anymore.  In my honest assessment of this state, we are drifting ever so slowly Democratic, but not enough to change the dynamics of this great state.

light blue small GOP trend
medium blue decent GOP trend

light red small dem trend
medium red decent Dem trend
dark red heavy Dem trend

gray little or  no trend

()

()

This is what I think... Could be wrong..

()

Don't agree with several, but some I can perhaps understand your thinking, but what makes you think PA & Ohio will trend GOP??

I believe the Republican party will start to shift to the left just a bit, which would cause states like PA, OH, MI, WI, IA to trend toward the GOP. While the Democrat party will stay the same or even shift just a bit to the right *Keep in mind the issue of today will not be the same of tomorrow*.

Dark Blue=hard right
Light Blue=gradual rightward shift
Grey=little or no change
Light Red=gradual leftward shift
Dark Red=hard left

()

I agree with everyting except FL, Which I think is beginning to trend hard right, NH which is sowing signs of going hard left along with ME which is also showing the same and AZ, MO,MI are trending center.   

1.  How the hell is Maine trending GOP??

2.  Where is Colorado on here??

I have disagreements on others, but these are the most blatant

This seems to roughly be our concensus:

(Image Link)

How exactly do you come to that conclusion as a consensus???  Quite a few off, but especially on NJ & NC???

So you basically agree with everything except for everything.

Those're mistakes. I didn't go state by state (I tried to do it by memory).

Can't see why you would think why either state would be trending GOP in the 1st place. 

I would have to say you are wrong.  A few years back you would have not think MI would be a toss-up to lean Demorcatic state, but now it is.

Then you clearly don't know much about Michigan a few years ago.

()

Mr. Moderate, I'm curious about your logic in regards to Oregon.

Smash, NJ is trending right, but they seem to peaking at about 45-47%

Same here. I believe that when you look at presidential election trends since 1992, Oregon ranks like 4th in the nation when it comes to trending Democrat.

Some people think it's trending back a little since a couple years ago.

 based off what exactly??  NJ was closer in 04, but that was manily due to the 9/11 bump Bush got throughout the metro area (Long Island, parts of the Hudson Valley, and CT as well as NJ).  That bump for the GOP has since gone away and NJ is basically as Democratic as it was during the late 90's and 2000, same for the rest opf the region (maybe even more Democratic on LI since the GOP keeps losing more & more seats here) but NJ really isn't trending GOP at all.  It was a 9/11 bump that is over.

()

Considering Dukakis did better there than Gore or Kerry:  how?

I'm getting deja vu, so sorry if I've ranted like this before.

The way I look at it it, Washington County and such doesn't seem to have any indications of trending anything but Dem.  Clackamas County has its inner suburbs (they go along with Washington County) like Lake Oswego and then its outer exurbs, which I don't see as getting any more GOP.

Beyond that, I'm not sure where the GOP would improve...the growth around Bend isn't good enough, and probably not even Republican enough.  I see it as stagnant, with more potential for the Dems.

The only area I really see the Dems risking losing in Oregon in the near future is Columbia County, and it continues to be inexplicably resistant.  I was expecting it to trend Bush big time in 2004 like other working-class counties with lots of Dem-friendly evangelicals.

()

The bump is yet to be seen whether or not it went away, that will be decided in the 2008 election.  However, if NJ was turning Dem then I think either Garrett or Ferguson would have been defeated.  The fact that they both held their seats and Kean had a decent showing say that NJ should let the GOP keep getting that 45-47 continually

You're nuts.  Ferguson and Garrett are supposed to have safe districts.  The fact that Ferguson almost lost and Garrett got held down to somewhere near 10% by a disaster of a candidate just goes to show that New Jersey is trending to the Democrats, not the other way around.

County by county, Democrats are gaining: Somerset, Burlington, Atlantic, and Bergen all immediately come to mind as trending leftward.  Ferguson even showed weakness in reliably Republican Hunterdon County last year.

Look for Democrats to expand their majorities in the State Senate and possibly the State Assembly too this year.

Does anyone want to take a stab at guessing the swing map from 2004-2008, compared to the national average?

For a start, NJ, NY, and CT will trend towards Dems without the 9/11 bump. Also, Louisiana will trend GOP with a smaller black population.

Your forgetting the type of districts both Garrett and Ferguson have.  Garrett is in a VERY Republican district, one of only two districts Bush won in 2000, the 2nd most Republican district in the state, while Ferguson's district did go to Gore in 00, it was made more GOP through redistricting, and is the 4th most GOP district in the state, this is seen by the district jumping much more Republican than even the state did between 2000 and 2004.

Not to mention while Garrett won by a decent margin (about 11) he outspent his opponent by 2-1, in a very GOP district.  Ferguson, who was also in a strong GOP district only won by a shade over 1%, despite outspending his opponent by $1 million.

To say those two winning showed that the state is moving right is a bit silly, considering the Republican bent of the districts themselves, the very tight race in one race, as well as the amount the two of them outspent their opponents

Ferguson's district didn't even vote for Gore. The seat he represented in 2000 did, but the new district voted for Bush both times. The fact that it was even close just shows how much of an idiot Ferguson is, there is no reason that seat should be competitive. As much as I'd love to see him gone, Stender would've most likely been a one-termer, perhaps a more moderate Democrat could hold the seat but Stender would've easily been one of the liberal out of NJ's delegation (didn't she promise to push for the impeachment of Bush?). The fact that someone so liberal came so close to beating Ferguson is not something Republicans should be happy about.

Garrett's district is not, never was and under the current lines never will be competitive. Garrett doesn't fit the district well, it'd be more well suited to Frelinguysen or even Saxton. But no one with an R next to their name is going to lose in that district, and it'll never be a serious target. Garrett's victories aren't really proof of anything more than Donald Payne's victories are.

Oh, I agree completely, but there are still a lot of people out there who think Oregon is trending right.

This is a waste of time, but:

Michigan was close in 2000, 2002, and 2004.  Illinois almost went to Dukakis in 1988 and has been more and more Democrat ever since.  There can be no comparison.

In a Clinton vs. Giuliani matchup:

NEW YORK
Clinton (D) 58%
Giuliani (R) 40%


NEW JERSEY
Clinton (D) 52%
Giuliani (R) 47%


CONNECTICUT
Clinton (D) 55%
Giuliani (R) 43%


LOUISIANA
Giuliani (R) 59%
Clinton (D) 40%

I think Rudy may do slightly better then Bush did in 04 in the Northeastern states you listed, However he still would not carry any of them except maybe NH and PA. 

Since 1992. Dukakis ran for President in 1988.

The only map acceptable to the forum:

()

I don't understand why we'll have any more elections, actually, since they will always be based on 2004 and how liberal-trending the west is.

Er, Tarheel, with all respect - regional optimism?  Because, seriously...what's going on here?

Most of them states you have are right, but some of the shade of colors are wrong. Like VA and NC... VA should be dark red, while NC should be the medium red.

I don't believe for a second that MI will be a blowout either way. I think it sitting on the Dem side of the fence, but it wouldn't take very much to push them over. I actually think PA is solidifying for the Dems, and OH remains the trickly little bastard it has been for the last God knows how long.

My belief is that with the Bush factor gone, MO, TX and AR becoming more competitive. Not that I think a Dem will win any (maybe MO).

I think 'tis my role to point out at this point that the whole theory of tRenDinG is deeply flawed?

Don't be such a party pooper.

In a Clinton vs. Giuliani matchup:

MISSOURI
Giuliani (R) 51%
Clinton (D) 48%


ARKANSAS
Giuliani (R) 52%
Clinton (D) 47%


TEXAS
Giuliani (R) 56%
Clinton (D) 42%

I just don't see Giuliani flying in Arkansas, where Bill is still very popular.

Clinton never really had "dark days", either. The lowest his approval rating got was the mid-40s. (OTOH, you're also wrong that Missouri is giving Bush relatively good approval ratings; currently 35-62 by SUSA, which is within the margin of error of the national average.)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=152d3ae8-1e4e-4dda-8adc-370b3f0125f4

There is no way Giuliani would win Arkansas, much like West Virginia.

The reason I had NC as dark red and VA as medium, is that I liken VA to NV with a steady trickling towards Democrats (though I think it's about to stop in NV) and NC will have a larger swing to Democrats (whether or not Dems. actually win the state).  For example I think if Dems. add three or four points to their 2004 share in VA, it'll be around six to seven in NC.  I expect NC whites to be voting about 35-37% Dem. in 2008, so if black turnout is as disproportionately high in NC as in 2004 (big "if" of course), then a Dem. might carry the state.  Whites in the peripheral south seem to have moved towards Democrats (nowhere near a majority share, of course, but at least five or six points I reckon).  WV was sort of a fluke in 2004 (well, it makes a lot of sense when you hear Thomas Frank talk about it in What's the Matter With Kansas?), so a six to seven pt. swing in that state would be dark red, like KY (from 40%D to 46-7%D), KS (from 37%D to 44%D) and TX (38%D to 44-5%D).  Excepting Colorado (where Hispanic voters vote so heavily Democratic), the interior West should be pretty unfruitful (probably b/c of the same reason GA is trending so heavily Republican despite a growing black and Latino population that--for one reason or another--turns out in disproportionately small numbers.  These, overall, are optimistic numbers for Democrats--I'm not denying that.  They are sort of the high mark, unless my party once again reverts to centrism and Clintonomics and the like.  And actually, most of the swings in the states cancel each other out, with likely a minimally-Democratic trend overall.

Obama would totally like clobber Guiliani in West Virginia because that would be awesome and stuff.  Bank it!

I fail to understand how Illinois is trending Republican. The Dem percentage has been growing steadily since 1992, and it's gonna stay like that as long as Chicagoland continues moving to the left.

half this map is a disaster

Yeah. Georgia going Dem is the worst part.

Yeah. Georgia's just one of those states the Democrats have no future in. Sure we'll hold on to Atlanta for one helluva long time, but Georgia as a whole will only go further to the right.

As for my own map...

()

lol so Atlas hasnt changed really over the past 12 years. The whole Trends= Destiny was huge even back then as well and lol the person with the wrongest predictions was BRTD.

It would be interesting to see what people think today and then come back in 2029 to see whether they were right, if you look at a lot of threads from 2009, they were pretty wrong about how things would look in 2019.

I bet many of these predictions will be wrong because trying to extrapolate trends beyond 2 election cycles usually is futile because of how many things change in ways we cant even think about during that 8 year period which has a far larger impact on how politics will be rather than trends= destiny .

The most hilarious prediction here was that Georgia would become even more Republican by the end of this decade then it was in 2004

yeah, for people who spent a considerable amount of time debating politics, we can't predict jack.

And yet we LITERALLY talk about places that are trending a certain way as if they're already safe for that party, haha.

Yah if TrendsAreReal were around back then he would be talking about how anyone who doesnt believe GA would become even more safely Republican by the end of the 2010s and Michigan would become Safe D by the end of the 2010s are stuck in the past

Why did most people think Texas would not Trend even slightly Dem, I mean its pretty obvious Bush's margins in Texas was inflated due to him being from Texas so even if you take that inflated margin away then that would mean it would trend slightly D

Truly, an Atlas elections genius.

No Republican has won a statewide election in Minnesota since that post.

How are those West Virginia and Georgia predictions working out for you?

West Virginia was wrong, Georgia did not begin trending D until much later than that post was made.

2016-2007=what again?

Actually, GA began trending D in 2008.

It’s shocking how little time GA was actually a Republican state as downballot it was Democratic until 2002 and Presidential since 2000(it was a swing state in the 90s).

It is very possible that GOP dominance of certain Southern states will look like a brief historical anomaly looking back from say, 2050.

In Virginia, easily the most Republican leaning Southern state during the mid-late 20th century, Democrats still controlled everything at the state level as recently as 1993.  Republicans only had 4 total years of trifecta control, from 2000-2001 and 2012-13, and the latter time, they needed the Republican LG to break ties in the state senate!  At least VA Republicans had the 1968-2004 streak at the presidential level, and the early wins in 52/56/60.

In North Carolina, Republican control has only been from 2013-17 thus far and it voted for Obama in 2008, breaking the 1980-2004 streak.

Even in Texas, the Republican trifecta only dates to 2003 and could plausibly be broken with the 2020 (state house of representatives) or 2022 (governor) elections.

Top quality lmao, this is pure gold

hehe

my god this man got about every state wrong didn't he

Gay, idyllic Vermont is trending deplorable (mainly due to its small population of ethnic minorities), and will decide an election for the GOP (a la Florida in 2000) in 2028 or earlier.

Latinos slowly but surely becoming more R

any evidence to that?

TX becoming a purple state.

WI, MI, PA all becoming likely R.