Red state turning blue

[Duke David]

The items listed above are all states that voted Republican in each presidential election from 1992 trough to 2008.

Which of them, in your estimation, could most possibly turn "blue" in future presidential elections?

(You've only got one vote.)

[Thomas D]

You mean Blue States turning Red.

Texas. By process of elimination.

[Duke David]

You mean Blue States turning Red.

Texas. By process of elimination.

Yeah, it's all a question of definition.

[Person Man]

Either the Dakotas or Texas. A really good Democrat could win the Dakotas in a landslide, but it is more likely that Texas will become competitive before a Democrat gets 57% of the popular vote (assuming a shift from Obama's 52.6% is uniform and takes his 45.0% of the vote in either Dakota and makes it 49.4% when a 3rd party takes more than 1.2% of the vote)

[Talleyrand]

Texas because of demographic trends, but I do believe the Dakotas are winnable in the right year with the right candidate. I wouldn't be surprised if Mississippi goes blue twenty or thirty years from now.

[greenforest32]

Texas because of demographic trends, but I do believe the Dakotas are winnable in the right year with the right candidate. I wouldn't be surprised if Mississippi goes blue twenty or thirty years from now.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Among those, Texas.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I honestly don't see much of a trend in Texas, and the GOP base states are probably not going anywhere for a while. I'd go with SC, reluctantly.

[Mechaman]

I honestly don't see much of a trend in Texas, and the GOP base states are probably not going anywhere for a while. I'd go with SC, reluctantly.

Yeah and a lot of people who do assume it'll be Democratic due to Hispanics fail to take into consideration the possibility of said demographic becoming "mainstreamed".
Texas Hispanics are already more Republican than the average Hispanic as it is.  And just because Obama lost Texas by 11 points instead of 20+ doesn't mean it's suddenly a swing state.

Now if a Democratic candidate wins the county that College Station resides in......then we'll talk.

[Heimdal]

For a lack of a better alternative I voted Mississippi. I don't think Texas will go blue anytime soon. The Texas Republicans are quite skilled at winning elections, and the Texas Democrats seem pretty incompetent (not as incompetent as the NY GOP of course).

[Mechaman]

As it regards to the question I think either of the Dakotas is the most vulnerable.
In the case of a landslide election.

[chdr]

I think Texas is the most likely state in the list to become a swing state (because let's face it, there are huge chunks of Texas that will never not be Republican). Most of Texas' growth is coming from Hispanics and out-of-staters moving in, something that resembles Florida (another red state with influential pockets of blue). It probably won't happen until a few decades from now, but I don't think Republican gerrymandering can prevent it forever.

[Torie]

Is Mississippi getting blacker?

[Guderian]

Is Mississippi getting blacker?

36.66% in 2000, 37.00% in 2010. Hispanics are growing too (like everywhere else), but this is all probably neutralized by the fact that Mississippi whites are becoming even more Republican with yellow dog types dying out, like Gene Taylor found out. It's highly unlikely this state will change much politically on presidential level in foreseeable future.

Popular, moderate Democratic incumbent (like Clinton in 1996) could win Dakotas if he decided to target them intentionally as "crown jewels" in a successful reelection bid, but that's unlikely because Dakotas are not worth much electorally.

[bore]

Is Mississippi getting blacker?

36.66% in 2000, 37.00% in 2010. Hispanics are growing too (like everywhere else), but this is all probably neutralized by the fact that Mississippi whites are becoming even more Republican with yellow dog types dying out, like Gene Taylor found out. It's highly unlikely this state will change much politically on presidential level in foreseeable future.

Popular, moderate Democratic incumbent (like Clinton in 1996) could win Dakotas if he decided to target them intentionally as "crown jewels" in a successful reelection bid, but that's unlikely because Dakotas are not worth much electorally.

You can't get much more republican than 90-10.

[Guderian]

Is Mississippi getting blacker?

36.66% in 2000, 37.00% in 2010. Hispanics are growing too (like everywhere else), but this is all probably neutralized by the fact that Mississippi whites are becoming even more Republican with yellow dog types dying out, like Gene Taylor found out. It's highly unlikely this state will change much politically on presidential level in foreseeable future.

Popular, moderate Democratic incumbent (like Clinton in 1996) could win Dakotas if he decided to target them intentionally as "crown jewels" in a successful reelection bid, but that's unlikely because Dakotas are not worth much electorally.

You can't get much more republican than 90-10.

I thought it was more like 85-15. But Republicans definitely don't need much since minority growth is rather slow in Mississippi.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

To be fair, Obama did worse than any other major Democratic candidate would have with white Southerners (that includes Edwards)

[bore]

Is Mississippi getting blacker?

36.66% in 2000, 37.00% in 2010. Hispanics are growing too (like everywhere else), but this is all probably neutralized by the fact that Mississippi whites are becoming even more Republican with yellow dog types dying out, like Gene Taylor found out. It's highly unlikely this state will change much politically on presidential level in foreseeable future.

Popular, moderate Democratic incumbent (like Clinton in 1996) could win Dakotas if he decided to target them intentionally as "crown jewels" in a successful reelection bid, but that's unlikely because Dakotas are not worth much electorally.

You can't get much more republican than 90-10.

I thought it was more like 85-15. But Republicans definitely don't need much since minority growth is rather slow in Mississippi.

I agree that there is no danger of mississippi swinging anytime soon but that won't be because of whites trending republican but as you say slow minority growth.

Here's the exit poll: http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/states/exitpolls/mississippi.html

[Mehmentum]

Texas or failing that South Carolina.

[Skill and Chance]

I'm torn.  TX is pretty clearly moving toward tilt R/swing state status by the mid 2020's, but I can't ever see it actually "turning blue" on a long term basis.  In ND or SD there isn't a meaningful Democratic trend at present, but with their low populations, they could swing more rapidly with population growth.  A wind energy boom later this decade or in the 2020's could turn them very blue very fast. 

[DS0816]

The items listed above are all states that voted Republican in each presidential election from 1992 trough to 2008.

Which of them, in your estimation, could most possibly turn "blue" in future presidential elections?

(You've only got one vote.)

With respect to you and this poll, the answer is this: for any of these to turn blue in a presidential election, we would see a Democrat elected having carried 80 percent of the states in this country. An overwhelming, national victory like what we used to get before the 1990s. (My answer is the same with the other thread's poll, touching on the same subject but asking for a scenario opposite of this one.)

[Duke David]

With respect to you and this poll, the answer is this: for any of these to turn blue in a presidential election, we would see a Democrat elected having carried 80 percent of the states in this country. An overwhelming, national victory like what we used to get before the 1990s. (My answer is the same with the other thread's poll, touching on the same subject but asking for a scenario opposite of this one.)

So, if I understand you right, to paraphrase, your response would be: never, except for a Democratic landslide victory?

[Nichlemn]

The items listed above are all states that voted Republican in each presidential election from 1992 trough to 2008.

Which of them, in your estimation, could most possibly turn "blue" in future presidential elections?

(You've only got one vote.)

With respect to you and this poll, the answer is this: for any of these to turn blue in a presidential election, we would see a Democrat elected having carried 80 percent of the states in this country. An overwhelming, national victory like what we used to get before the 1990s. (My answer is the same with the other thread's poll, touching on the same subject but asking for a scenario opposite of this one.)

This is wrong, but closer to the truth than for the other scenario. The fact you can't see why the two are different is troubling.

[Minnesota Mike]

I honestly don't see much of a trend in Texas, and the GOP base states are probably not going anywhere for a while. I'd go with SC, reluctantly.

Look at the Exit polls from Texas in 2008/2010. Dems won the under 30 vote in the Pres/Gov elections and the under 45 vote was split about 50/50. Texas may never be a Democratic stronghold but it is definitely moving to swing state status in the not to distant future.

[Nichlemn]

I honestly don't see much of a trend in Texas, and the GOP base states are probably not going anywhere for a while. I'd go with SC, reluctantly.

Look at the Exit polls from Texas in 2008/2010. Dems won the under 30 vote in the Pres/Gov elections and the under 45 vote was split about 50/50. Texas may never be a Democratic stronghold but it is definitely moving to swing state status in the not to distant future.

That's the case in a lot of states, though. It would be like saying Kansas will become a swing state because Obama won the under 30 vote there. Maybe the effect is bigger in Texas than nationwide but you haven't shown that.