Realignment?

[I Can't Get That Sound You Make, Out Of My Head]

I have figured out that there will probably be a political realignment over the next few years. The scenarios I've narrowed it down to are....

Obama Wins

Not much changes immediately. A reformer who's moderate-conservative (think Chris Christie) wins in 2016. However, people start to tire of conservative policies, and he gets voted out in 2020 for a populist type. Eventually, the parties move towards left-right economic policies, and ignore cultural wars. Libertarians start to win Republican primaries, and populists start to win Democratic primaries. Some of the South moves towards the Democrats, ditto the North and Republicans.

Romney Wins

Romney starts off moderate. But after conservatives get annoyed, he starts giving the base red meat, and gets the court to strike down Roe v. Wade. Eventually, lefties get pissed off, and there is a major cultural war ala the 60's. No matter what Romney does, his goose is cooked, and the country moves to the left. Maybe even too left if the economy is still bad.

[hopper]

2016 or 2020: I think the lower south(VA, NC, GA, and FL) will start voting Dem regulalrly in presidential elections. NJ could go back to its Swing Status as it was from the 60's-early 90's. The Rust Belt will start voting regularly for  the R's in Presidential Election except for Illinois and maybe Michigan(the UAW workers save that state from going R) after Walker and Kasich go away. NV, AZ, TX, NM, and CO go dem( which is great news for the D's and bad news for the R's) because that is where the population growth is in the US in the Southwest.

I will be curious to see what happens to states like MA, Utah, and Montana if they start trending majorly to the opposite party. The Dakota's are staying Republican and so is Missouri. SC and Indiana are staying R. Minnesota is going R.

The Northeast is staying D mostly except for NJ for the time being. MA is up in the air to what political direction that they are going in. NH stays purple or has a slight lean R to it. The West coast is staying D as well.

[GM Griffin]

I honestly would be surprised to see the Republicans win another presidential election anytime within the next 20 years. If you look at PV over the past five elections, a Republican has only won once (2004), while Democrats won in 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2008. Democratic presidents are simply a better fit now in centrist American politics as the Democratic Party is much more centrist (as a national average) than it was throughout much of the 20th century. The electoral math isn't there for them, either. The Democratic candidate's electoral floor now is somewhere around 230 EV, while Republicans' is at 170. As hooper mentioned, you have several states (VA, NC, SC, GA) that either already have or will leave the Republicans' center of power over the next decade. I tend to think FL will remain a swing state for a good 15 years due to split demographics that keep renewing themselves. 

Republicans' key to power will be holding on to the favorable house districts they've drawn for themselves for the next decade. I believe we'll be facing a scenario throughout most of the next decade where Democrats control the Senate and Presidency and Republicans may control or be a strong minority within the House.

[J. J.]

There is a whole thread on it here:  http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=69332.0

It was started more than 4 years ago.

[politicus]

The electoral math isn't there for them, either. The Democratic candidate's electoral floor now is somewhere around 230 EV, while Republicans' is at 170. As hooper mentioned, you have several states (VA, NC, SC, GA) that either already have or will leave the Republicans' center of power over the next decade. I tend to think FL will remain a swing state for a good 15 years due to split demographics that keep renewing themselves. 

What states are you counting to get as high as 170? I only get 113 as their floor. Alabama, Alaska, KY, KS, LA, MS, NE, OK, TN, TX, UT, WY.

[hopper]

The electoral math isn't there for them, either. The Democratic candidate's electoral floor now is somewhere around 230 EV, while Republicans' is at 170. As hooper mentioned, you have several states (VA, NC, SC, GA) that either already have or will leave the Republicans' center of power over the next decade. I tend to think FL will remain a swing state for a good 15 years due to split demographics that keep renewing themselves. 

What states are you counting to get as high as 170? I only get 113 as their floor. Alabama, Alaska, KY, KS, LA, MS, NE, OK, TN, TX, UT, WY.

You forgot about the Dakota's and MO though.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The electoral math isn't there for them, either. The Democratic candidate's electoral floor now is somewhere around 230 EV, while Republicans' is at 170. As hooper mentioned, you have several states (VA, NC, SC, GA) that either already have or will leave the Republicans' center of power over the next decade. I tend to think FL will remain a swing state for a good 15 years due to split demographics that keep renewing themselves. 

What states are you counting to get as high as 170? I only get 113 as their floor. Alabama, Alaska, KY, KS, LA, MS, NE, OK, TN, TX, UT, WY.

You forgot about the Dakota's and MO though.

Missouri isn't safe Romney.

[politicus]

The electoral math isn't there for them, either. The Democratic candidate's electoral floor now is somewhere around 230 EV, while Republicans' is at 170. As hooper mentioned, you have several states (VA, NC, SC, GA) that either already have or will leave the Republicans' center of power over the next decade. I tend to think FL will remain a swing state for a good 15 years due to split demographics that keep renewing themselves.  

What states are you counting to get as high as 170? I only get 113 as their floor. Alabama, Alaska, KY, KS, LA, MS, NE, OK, TN, TX, UT, WY.

You forgot about the Dakota's and MO (MT right?) though.

I don't think you can count the Dakotas and Montana as part of a Republican floor in the years ahead. All three states could go Dem with the right candidate. Brian Schweitzer could take all of them in a succesful campaign

[5280/East California]

Another 3-4 election cycles (2034+)  I think the GOP will become more Libertarian and the Democrats more socialist/populist

[politicus]

Another 3-4 election cycles (2034+)

The Dakotas will have changed a lot with wind energy etc. Small immigration of well educated will affect a lot. Texas is majority Hispanic at this point. It would likely be D.

[Senator Snowstalker]

Scenario A (what, as an economic liberal, I prefer) would eventually lead to something like this:



Scenario B (culture war elections bore me):

[PulaskiSkywayDriver]

I love that you all think NJ is trending GOP long term, but why? Is it the refocus on economics?

[Senator Snowstalker]

I love that you all think NJ is trending GOP long term, but why? Is it the refocus on economics?

Yes. Meanwhile, the South (not just the New South) trends D, Cali becomes a swing state, etc.

My prediction is that elections will look a lot like 1976 in the future.

[politicus]

Just for fun. No change of current positions. GOP keep the culture war going and current immigration policies which alienates Hispanics add Norquist style tax policies and you could get this. Unlikely because they will adjust their positions.

[Is JCL in mushy sappy love]

Just for fun. No change of current positions. GOP keep the culture war going and current immigration policies which alienates Hispanics add Norquist style tax policies and you could get this. Unlikely because they will adjust their positions.

You have Indiana colored wrong.

[Comrade Funk]

Just for fun. No change of current positions. GOP keep the culture war going and current immigration policies which alienates Hispanics add Norquist style tax policies and you could get this. Unlikely because they will adjust their positions.

You have Indiana colored wrong.

Why would Indiana continue to go GOP if the GOP keep up with their extreme right social views? They are likely going Republican this year, but not in the future if the Republicans don't change their social views and immigration views.

[Is JCL in mushy sappy love]

Indiana is more socially conservative than you think. In 2014 we're gonna ban gay marriage in a voter referendum/constuitional amendment by at least 15 percentage points or more. We also have one of the strictest laws regarding abortion short of banning it (and we're aiming to do that too)

[hopper]

I love that you all think NJ is trending GOP long term, but why? Is it the refocus on economics?

The population growth in NJ is mainly down the shore  and in Central-Western Jersey(Somerset, Warren Counties) I think which is definately not as liberal politically as the Urban Area's in Hudson and Essex Counties. The Dems when they were in charge of the govenorships from 2002-2009 most New Jerseyans didn't approve of the job they were doing except for Democrat Richard Codey who's very short term was sandwiched in between Corzine's lone term and McGreevey's early exit from the Governor's Mansion. Another factor is even though NJ has a good population of Latino's and Asians there is no big thing about a border fence or illegal immigration because NJ isn't a border state so that helps.

In my opinion NJ will be a swing state again soon.

[hopper]

Just for fun. No change of current positions. GOP keep the culture war going and current immigration policies which alienates Hispanics add Norquist style tax policies and you could get this. Unlikely because they will adjust their positions.

Yeah Rubio's version of the "DREAM Act" may start to reflect that.

[AmericanNation]

Scenario A (what, as an economic liberal, I prefer) would eventually lead to something like this:



Scenario B (culture war elections bore me):

Green = obvious strong DEM until state financial crisis event becomes a powerful wild card.
Pink = easiest GOP pick-offs
Light red = possible shift to swing

*The “south” tends to break up into 3 regions I like to call  Deep South, Tidewater, and Greater-Appalachia. 
Democrats will generally need to break one off to win the presidency.
So, we will see new versions of Clinton, Edwards, and Carter respectively and correspondingly.
 
We are trending toward this.  How long it will take to get there or how long the trend will last, I don't know, things change, but this is the current direction. 

[Oldiesfreak1854]

A realignment will never happen until one party starts to reach out to the other's base.  And I don't think younger Latinos are as motivated by immigration as older Latinos, so they could be in play in the near future.

[BritishDixie]

No were still living with the Clinton realignment. These states have all voted Democratic or Republican at the past 5 elections:




Since the Bush era modified voting patterns slightly:



I doubt any of these states will change columns at this election or at subsequent elections within the next 12 years or so, barring serious developments, which are of course possible, but I seriously doubt any realignment will be happening soon. Clinton I think is one of the few people (e.g McKinley, FDR, Nixon) who has created a durable alignment.

[cope1989]

Agreed, we're still living in the Clinton realignment as an umbrella system. I mean the Clinton years definitely established red states and blue states. But the swing states have changed pretty tremendously

1992/1996: Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, Arizona

2000/2004: Iowa, New Mexico

2008: North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana

And then of course there are the perennial swing states that have always been competitive. But the ones I listed above seemed to only be competitive in those certain cycles. You could argue that NM and IA are still swing states, but it looks like NM is losing its toss up status and is becoming lean Dem. And since 1988, IA has only gone R once, in 2004, and it was by a very slim margin.

So while the same party system has more or less remained in place since 92, the swing states have changed, probably not always based on political changes but moreso the regional strengths of the candidates.

[BritishDixie]

What is said above is correct, however, I would point out that due to their hispanic populations, Nevada, New Mexico and to a lesser extent Colorado are pretty much lean D states. Demographic changes are changing regional affiliation, as the south-west becomes Democratic, whilst whites becoming more solidly Republican has largely killed of Democratic hopes in Appalachia.

[AmericanNation]

What is said above is correct, however, I would point out that due to their hispanic populations, Nevada, New Mexico and to a lesser extent Colorado are pretty much lean D states. Demographic changes are changing regional affiliation, as the south-west becomes Democratic, whilst whites becoming more solidly Republican has largely killed of Democratic hopes in Appalachia.

...wouldn't "whites becoming more solidly Republican" also realign the Midwest - 'rust belt' to some extent? 

Iowa and Wisconsin flip from lean D to lean R.  PA, MI, and possibly MN get close to being tossups.  OH gets more R. 

Cultural differences between Greater Appalachians and Midwestern Yankee's are huge, but 'Midlanders' are in between the two.  Not surprisingly, the least Yankee states and most Midlander /+ Appalachian are most R right now (IN, OH, IA, WI).