Do Democrats need a Western strategy?

[hopper]

Rumors of the Democratic party's death are greatly exaggerated.  They still have public opinion on their side, and they still won the popular vote.  If anything, it's Republicans who need a suburban strategy.

Popular Vote didn't mean anything this cycle though. I do agree I don't see the Democrats dying.

[hopper]

Rumors of the Democratic party's death are greatly exaggerated.  They still have public opinion on their side, and they still won the popular vote.  If anything, it's Republicans who need a suburban strategy.

Yeah, the people assuming that the educated suburbanites will inevitably swing back to Trump and the GOP and ensure a permanent R majority!1!1! Are actually pretty hilarious. Public opinion has shown already that basically everything the GOP and Trump have done so far (or plan to do) is underwater, oftentimes by huge margins, except on a few cabinet posts and Obamacare repeal (and even that could change given how they don't even have a viable plan after seven years of screaming bloody murder). This is literallg setting the stage for backlash like we've never seen, but oh well. I'm just an unaffiliated observer, what do I know? 😂

Not to mention that because the president essentially becomes the face/leader of his or her party, what people think of that person inevitably bleeds down at least somewhat to the rest of their party. It's part of why presidents cost their party downballot in midterms. Just like Obama, Trump is going to continue influencing the people he pushed away throughout his presidency. This is why it is so important to get the right person in the White House - if you put someone hated in there, they could seriously hurt your party. People tend to focus too much on that one person at the top.

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/5/12712932/american-state-government-federalism

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The fact is, the average voter does not behave like Atlas posters. They don't know much about many of the other offices. If these suburbanites didn't like Trump in November and continue to not like him by 2018-2020, then I think its inevitable that Republicans in those regions suffer at some point.

Lastly, it's worth noting here that as educated Millennials (white or non-white) grow up and spread out, they will most likely begin tilting certain suburbs more towards Democrats. The electorate is not static. It constantly changes, and when one party completely ignores and even persistently alienates an entire generation, they will pay for it sooner or later.

It's even more dangerous for downballot Republicans because Trump is already lower than Obama ever was at any point. Like it or not people, Trump is the Republican Party now. And suburbanites will likely see it that way and start voting accordingly, unless of course the Democrats go bat-sh**t insane.

Trump hasn't even took office yet. Obama was like a "rock star" when he entered office in January 2009.

True I do agree that downballot the Republican Party will be tied to Trump but Democrats were tied to Obama downballot too.

[hopper]

They aren't going to win Montana and Idaho any time soon (and probably not Utah either).

Not any time soon, which is why I put it in the trends board. But the Midwest is not going to be Safe R any time soon either. I'm talking about what Democrats should do if/when that happens.

Of course, it's possible that winning back the Midwest is easier than winning those Western states.

You pretty much answered your own question . I think Alaska, if anything, and working on making sure that Oregon and Washington stay strongly D, because those are the most logical states for Republicans to look to once they realize that the Midwest won't be enough to cancel out the Sun Belt losses when R's eventually do lose the Sun Belt. Fwiw, R's IMO will never be "locks" in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania. The growing areas of those state are in D trending suburban counties (Montgomery, Chester, Delaware, Oakland... Hell, even Wayne and Philadelphia are increasing in population relative to the state) while the rural areas are mostly shedding population, and at alarming rates. D's will need to win Senate seats in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Minnesota in order to even have a chance at a majority in the future, especially if D's become reliant upon states like GA, TX (which is liable for an unfriendly R electorate in midterms with Latino dropoff), and AZ (same situation as TX). Of the Midwestern states, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Ohio seem like the only long-term permanent R states barring a wave. Minnesota is fluky.

Wayne County, MI('s) Population has decreased 3.4% or 61,429 people since the 2010 Census while Michigan as a whole has grown by 0.5% or 44,660 people during the same time period.

I do think Michigan will have a Republican US Senator one of these days.

True Michigan will never be an "R" lock.

I could see Chester County, PA going back to where it was in 2012 post-Trump as Romney won the county.

[hopper]

Rumors of the Democratic party's death are greatly exaggerated.  They still have public opinion on their side, and they still won the popular vote.  If anything, it's Republicans who need a suburban strategy.

Yeah, the people assuming that the educated suburbanites will inevitably swing back to Trump and the GOP and ensure a permanent R majority!1!1! Are actually pretty hilarious. Public opinion has shown already that basically everything the GOP and Trump have done so far (or plan to do) is underwater, oftentimes by huge margins, except on a few cabinet posts and Obamacare repeal (and even that could change given how they don't even have a viable plan after seven years of screaming bloody murder). This is literallg setting the stage for backlash like we've never seen, but oh well. I'm just an unaffiliated observer, what do I know? 😂

Not to mention that because the president essentially becomes the face/leader of his or her party, what people think of that person inevitably bleeds down at least somewhat to the rest of their party. It's part of why presidents cost their party downballot in midterms. Just like Obama, Trump is going to continue influencing the people he pushed away throughout his presidency. This is why it is so important to get the right person in the White House - if you put someone hated in there, they could seriously hurt your party. People tend to focus too much on that one person at the top.

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/5/12712932/american-state-government-federalism

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The fact is, the average voter does not behave like Atlas posters. They don't know much about many of the other offices. If these suburbanites didn't like Trump in November and continue to not like him by 2018-2020, then I think its inevitable that Republicans in those regions suffer at some point.

Lastly, it's worth noting here that as educated Millennials (white or non-white) grow up and spread out, they will most likely begin tilting certain suburbs more towards Democrats. The electorate is not static. It constantly changes, and when one party completely ignores and even persistently alienates an entire generation, they will pay for it sooner or later.

It's even more dangerous for downballot Republicans because Trump is already lower than Obama ever was at any point. Like it or not people, Trump is the Republican Party now. And suburbanites will likely see it that way and start voting accordingly, unless of course the Democrats go bat-sh**t insane.

Trump hasn't even took office yet. Obama was like a "rock star" when he entered office in January 2009.

True I do agree that downballot the Republican Party will be tied to Trump but Democrats were tied to Obama downballot too.

That's my point. Obama sank Democrats everywhere (but particularly hard in the blue dog areas that McCain had won in 2008), and he had a 45%-48% approval rating (not that bad at all when compared to Trump). Anyone thinking those 24 Republicans sitting in Clinton districts are immune to being tied to Trump are off their rocker. They'll be the first to go in even a small blue wave.

Well Obama had a 47% Approval Rating on Election Day 2010 to be exact I think. I don't all 24 "Hillary House Districts" that Congressional Republicans occupy in 2017-2018 are all gonna go to the Dems in 2018. Some will some won't and Congressional Republicans could lose seats in marginal Trump Districts.

[hopper]

Well...yeah. Every losing party has a few bright spots. Gerlach, Shays, and Heather Wilson all survived 2006. Boren, Ross, and Giffords all survived 2010. But if 2018 is a big-ish wave (not implausible if Trump's approvals are perpetually sh**tty), I'd wager that 3/4ths of the Clinton Republican congresspeople will lose. People like IRL, Curbelo, Comstock, Coffman, Valadao, and Paulsen, all seeming to be electoral superstars, would be fighting for their political lives. Then there'll be all those people who sit in marginal Trump seats (like you mentioned) that would be toppled in such a scenario. Dems only need 24 seats total, though they should shoot for more like 35-40 to allow for ideological flexibility to account for the Collin Petersons and Kurt Schraders of the caucus.

....Also, Dave Reichert(R-WA) survived bad years for Republicans in both 2006 and 2008 and Jim Matheson(D-UT) survived 2010 which was a pretty bad year for Dems. Larry Kissell(D-NC) survived 2010 but got beat in 2012.