The South

[Sol]

One interesting demographic pattern is the growth of the Democratic party in the South on the presidential level. This can already be seen in Virginia and North Carolina, and probably will be important in Georgia. How crucial do you think this will be in the future? Will there be significant Democratic growth in SC, Mississippi, or Texas?

[DC Al Fine]

Yes,

The Hispanic share of the population is increasing rapidly in Texas and I think the black shares of MS & SC are increasing as well (albeit at a smaller rate). It will be a while before this change is enough to affect MS & SC, but Texas should be in play within a generation or so.

[freefair]

Yes,

The Hispanic share of the population is increasing rapidly in Texas and I think the black shares of MS & SC are increasing as well (albeit at a smaller rate). It will be a while before this change is enough to affect MS & SC, but Texas should be in play within a generation or so.

In the Deep south and Texas, yes, but in the upper south/appalachia, at a federal level, the party is currently dying a death. Only Hillary Clinton could flip those states sort term, long term it will take a huge change of direction OR regional tokenism.
Ironically, until the deep south is 48%+ Dem, the population growth there will benefit the GOP in the short term by giving them more electoral votes relative to liberal northern states. Even if there margins there are being eroded, a state 51% GOP with 12 ECV's is worth more than a 59% GOP state worth 9.
Virginia, N+S Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas and Missisippi can easily flip Dem within 16 years or so. Others I can only see in a Blowout.

[Antonio the Sixth]

One interesting demographic pattern is the growth of the Democratic party in the South on the presidential level.

Not really... While Democrats have made inroads in the South Atlantic region and might be poised to make some in Texas, they have been utterly annihilated in the inner South and Border States over the course of the last two decades.

[justfollowingtheelections]

One interesting demographic pattern is the growth of the Democratic party in the South on the presidential level. This can already be seen in Virginia and North Carolina, and probably will be important in Georgia. How crucial do you think this will be in the future? Will there be significant Democratic growth in SC, Mississippi, or Texas?

The growth of the Democratic parties in the states you mentioned is happening for different reasons.  Virginia has become a more urban state with a lot of people moving to NOVA to work in Washington.  The Research Triangle in North Carolina on the other hand is becoming the Massachusetts of the South (university cities are usually very liberal).
Georgia and especially Atlanta are a very attractive destination for many African-Americans from around the country.  In many of these states Obama was also able to inspire African-Americans who saw  his candidacy as a historical moment for the country (and rightfully so).
African-Americans in many cases have been apathetic towards politics because they felt ignored by both parties, and whether these people will keep voting once Obama is out of the picture remains to be seen.  But I think the African-American vote made a huge difference in Florida and Virginia.
South Carolina has similar characteristics to North Carolina and Georgia but the Democratic presence is still not as strong.
Mississippi is a different story.  This is the state where the % of the black population is the largest in the country and it's steadily increasing.  At some point in the near future it could easily become a black-majority state.  Texas is also different, due to the increasing population of Hispanics who are becoming more and more Democratic as well as the growth of the large urban centers.  But I think many are overestimating the influence Democrats will have here in the near future.

[BaldEagle1991]

Yeah I can see Democratic gains, but all of what you guys have been saying are mostly because of Northern transplants, minorities, etc. I would like to see some small inroads into White-born Protestant Southerners. That would be an interesting change to see. If they can really do that then states like Georgia and Texas can truly start being competitive.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes,

The Hispanic share of the population is increasing rapidly in Texas and I think the black shares of MS & SC are increasing as well (albeit at a smaller rate). It will be a while before this change is enough to affect MS & SC, but Texas should be in play within a generation or so.

Actually, the Black share has been going down in SC, but so is the non-Hispanic White share.  While there is no longer the heavy Black outmigration that there was c. 1900-1970, recent inmigration has been a combination of people moving here from elsewhere in the States at roughly the same proportion as national demographics and Hispanics moving here for physical labor jobs.

[Indy Texas]

In all likelihood, we'll end up with a Deep South that is heavily polarized along racial lines (monolithically Democratic blacks and monolithically Republican whites) with Republicans having a lock on all major offices; and an Upper South that is equally Republican, with token Democratic presence in cities. The Democrats will do their best in the South's border states (Virginia, North Carolina, Florida and Texas).

This will basically be a mirror image of the situation a century ago. (From Reconstsruction up until the '60s, the only Southern states that had any Republicans in Congress were Virginia, NC, Texas, Florida and Tennessee).

[old timey villain]

In all likelihood, we'll end up with a Deep South that is heavily polarized along racial lines (monolithically Democratic blacks and monolithically Republican whites) with Republicans having a lock on all major offices; and an Upper South that is equally Republican, with token Democratic presence in cities. The Democrats will do their best in the South's border states (Virginia, North Carolina, Florida and Texas).

This will basically be a mirror image of the situation a century ago. (From Reconstsruction up until the '60s, the only Southern states that had any Republicans in Congress were Virginia, NC, Texas, Florida and Tennessee).

That's what we have now. But in the future we will have a monolithically interior south while the South Atlantic states (VA, NC, SC, GA and FL) will be swingy. They'll still be pretty racially polarized but there will be enough minorities and liberal whites in the fast growing urban areas to make this region competitive. So the new divide in the south will be east vs west, instead of upper vs lower.

[JacobNC]

Growth in South Carolina is taking place mostly in Republican areas like the Upstate, York County, and Horry County, so I don't think we'll see a strong Democratic trend there.  Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas are really long shots too.  Georgia is the most promising.  Texas next.  Louisiana if some major re-birth happens in the New Orleans area.

[Skill and Chance]

As others have pointed out, it depends on what part of the South we are talking about.  

TX:  Right now, the state is moving nowhere, but it could be made into a swing state simply by boosting Hispanic turnout enough.  However, this would be a hugely expensive effort that would take several election cycles to pay off, so I don't see Democrats actually playing here for a long time.

LA/MS/AL/SC:  The D improvement here has a lot to do with Obama's candidacy and turnout machine.  I actually think these states will snap back right in 2016.  

GA: Same as the rest of the Deep South, but it's closer to the tipping point with Atlanta.  I would be interested to see how a culturally Southern D would play here.

FL: Without Obama this will be tough.  It trended slightly left this year, but long term trends will come down to who wins the Medicare debate.  

VA: The shift toward Democrats here is likely for the long haul.  The Appalachian areas are just about tapped out while NOVA still has a lot of room to grow and move left.  Look at neighboring areas in MD.  If Fairfax starts voting like Montgomery, MD then the state is gone for R's long term.  

NC: Legitimately promising long term signs here, but I'm not convinced it will keep moving to the center after Obama.  A culturally Southern D would be even more likely to win here.

AR/TN/KY/WV: Virtually no limit to how much these states can move right due to their less diverse demographics.  They are likely to be monolithically R for the foreseeable future.  

So basically I'm only convinced of true Democratic movement in VA and probably NC.  

[Beezer]

What about FL? It's a state that Romney really should have won considering its dismal economic state yet Obama managed to win it thanks to increased support among Hispanics and higher turnout within this group as well. What are the projections for Hispanic growth in that state?

[Person Man]

What about FL? It's a state that Romney really should have won considering its dismal economic state yet Obama managed to win it thanks to increased support among Hispanics and higher turnout within this group as well. What are the projections for Hispanic growth in that state?

Florida could simply push to the center as White Cubans push to the center.

[memphis]

FL has been a GOP leaning swing state for many cycles. I don't see much evidence that this is changing. While NC has moved from safe R to likely R, I doubt very much it will move into bellweather status. Too many rural and suburban whites. Even more true for GA and SC. Virginia is a much more interesting case. So much of the state's economy is tied to the federal gov't. It's hard for a rabidly anti-federal gov't GOP to compensate. Would you vote for a party whose primary ideology is to hurt your area's main industry?

[BaldEagle1991]

I think a lot of people are forgetting there's a large amount of people in the South tied to the military. That right there is another factor to think about.

[TeePee4Prez]

Growth in South Carolina is taking place mostly in Republican areas like the Upstate, York County, and Horry County, so I don't think we'll see a strong Democratic trend there.  Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas are really long shots too.  Georgia is the most promising.  Texas next.  Louisiana if some major re-birth happens in the New Orleans area.

I do think SC's 7th district and Horry County will be Democratic in the long run.  LOTS of Northern license plates in Myrtle Beach when I visit.  Same goes for Little River and other places near there.  They might be tax refugees from the North, but usually they trend Dem in the long run like they do in the Research Triangle area.

For some reason in the South, the coastal areas seem more liberal while inland all bets are off. 

[memphis]

Growth in South Carolina is taking place mostly in Republican areas like the Upstate, York County, and Horry County, so I don't think we'll see a strong Democratic trend there.  Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas are really long shots too.  Georgia is the most promising.  Texas next.  Louisiana if some major re-birth happens in the New Orleans area.

I do think SC's 7th district and Horry County will be Democratic in the long run.  LOTS of Northern license plates in Myrtle Beach when I visit.  Same goes for Little River and other places near there.  They might be tax refugees from the North, but usually they trend Dem in the long run like they do in the Research Triangle area.

For some reason in the South, the coastal areas seem more liberal while inland all bets are off. 

WTF? Discounting South FL, as not really Southern, the coast, all the way from TX to VA is extremely conservative. Take a look at a county map. You have a few minority heavy cities like Savannah and Norfolk, but other than that, Republicans from South Padre to the Chesapeake Bay. Unlike most of SC, Horry has been trending GOP for many cycles now. It has nothing in common with the Research Triangle at all. If you want somewhere to compare it to, it's more like Arizona with retirees coming in for the sunshine.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Like much of the South Carolina coast, Horry is more a Libertarian/Small Government type GOP rather than Religious Right GOP, as is the upstate.  For instance, back in 2006, on Amendment 1, which banned same-sex marriage, Horry voted 73.7% Yes while statewide it was 78.0% Yes.  Horry was the fourth-best county for the Noes, beaten only by Charleston, Richland, and Beaufort.  Richland has the capital while Charleston and Beaufort are two more coastal counties.  (Even in Charleston, the Yeses got 64.8%.)

So for example, while Todd Akin would have no problem winning the upstate Religious Right districts (The strongest Yes vote was in Cherokee at 90.3%.), I think he could have lost if he'd been running in the 1st or 7th.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

VA, Southern Ohio and Florida are the battlegrounds with high African-American and hispanic populations.  If it isn't a blowout, the rest of the south is irrelevant.

[td191]

The south, including TX, will be a GOP stronghold for the forseable future. I think the GOP will be able to make enough gains with Hispanics (Insert George P. Bush here) to keep the state Red.

VA (which I don't consider to be a southern state, is now a blue state.

[BaldEagle1991]

The south, including TX, will be a GOP stronghold for the forseable future. I think the GOP will be able to make enough gains with Hispanics (Insert George P. Bush here) to keep the state Red.

Ted Cruz is a Republican Senator of TX, but he only got around 30% of the Hispanic vote. A Bush family member would probably get much less than that nowadays.

[Smash255]

FL has been a GOP leaning swing state for many cycles. I don't see much evidence that this is changing. While NC has moved from safe R to likely R, I doubt very much it will move into bellweather status. Too many rural and suburban whites. Even more true for GA and SC. Virginia is a much more interesting case. So much of the state's economy is tied to the federal gov't. It's hard for a rabidly anti-federal gov't GOP to compensate. Would you vote for a party whose primary ideology is to hurt your area's main industry?

I do see potential for NC to move more towards bellweather status.  Keep in mind despite Obama losing it this time around it trend albeit narrowly towards the Dems.  With the numbers pretty much any Democrat will run up in the Triangle and Mecklenburg the state is  poised to remain close.

Florida is interesting, due to the Hispanic vote.  Due to strong Cuban support the Republicans have done better with the Hispanic vote in Florida than most other areas.  However, the non-Cuban portion of the Hispanic vote has become a larger portion of the Hispanic vote and will likely continue to do so.  Also the Cuban vote itself trended heavily towards Obama.  Its hard to say how much of it was due to Obama or if they will trend back GOP with the GOP softening up on immigration.  However, if the Cuban vote doesn't revert back and especially if they become even more Democratic, the GOP is in DEEP trouble in Florida.

[sg0508]

GA is next for the democrats in the south.  It's ripe.  The GOP should be worrying more about FL than democrats.  If FL becomes unwinnable for Republicans, they are pretty much unelectable at the presidential level.

[DS0816]

One interesting demographic pattern is the growth of the Democratic party in the South on the presidential level. This can already be seen in Virginia and North Carolina, and probably will be important in Georgia. How crucial do you think this will be in the future? Will there be significant Democratic growth in SC, Mississippi, or Texas?

Of the eleven states of the old confederacy, the Democrats' path to winning the presidency used to include Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, and one or both of Georgia and Florida. Fla. and Virginia are now bellwether states. North Carolina is trending to competitive -- it was 13 points (2000), 10 points (2004), 7 points (2008), and between 5 and 6 points (2012) redder than how the country voted over those last four cycles. Republicans now have all four congressional seats in Ark. which had carried for all prevailing Democratic presidents prior to Obama and including No. 42 and native son Bill Clinton. La. has trended red due in part to reduced population from New Orleans. Texas is one that is on a path to possibly compensate for Ark., La., Tenn. (and formerly reliable border-souths Kentucky and West Virginia). Georgia, though, is one the Democrats should go after before Texas. It was one of three -- of a total 22 -- states that carried in 2008 for John McCain as Barack Obama won over the female vote. (His 54 percent of women was stronger in Ga. than that of his pickup states Virginia, Florida, and non-south Ohio.) 2012 couldn't make Ga. feasible because of the national trajectory that resulted in Obama reduced from D+7.26 (2008) to D+3.84 (2012). Had he experienced an increase with popular-vote margin and electoral-vote score ... he still would have lost Indiana and Nebraska #02 but had feasible shots at flipping Arizona (where he did win over the female vote) and Georgia (no report from the exit polls because it was one of 19 states not polled by Associated Press). Both Ariz. and Ga. carried in single digits, for Mitt Romney, and a 10- to 13-point national victory -- with an increase of three to just over five points -- would have made them possible 2012 Democratic pickups.

[TNF]

Virginia is/will be a blue state for the foreseeable future.

North Carolina will go the way of Virginia.

South Carolina and Georgia will become competitive in the next decade, as will Texas.

Florida is steadily becoming more Democratic, but probably won't be a lock for Democrats until a decade or so. It'll remain competitive probably until the 2020s.

Mississippi and Louisiana are possible pickups in a generation or so, and I'd say the same for Tennessee if population growth continues there.

Kentucky, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Alabama are out of reach for the time being, but that could change depending upon the Democratic nominees in the future, ideological developments, etc.