Protectionist GOP vs. Pro-free trade Democratic Party

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Inspired by a discussion in this thread.

What would the map look like if such a party realignment were to occur?  Would Democrats have any path to victory under these circumstances?  Discuss with maps.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The last prominent protectionist GOP candidate I can think of is Pat Buchanan, who'd be unpalatable on a whole host of issues. Since a large number of Democrats have embraced free trade, what's an example of a protectionist Republican that could win?

[traininthedistance]

Protectionism vs. free trade is frankly a very minor issue in the political battles of today, and this arrangement is also both not too far from what we already have, as well as arguably more ideologically consistent.  A social liberal Democratic party that gets the bulk of its vote from a coalition between educated, secular whites and minorities, and appeal to them on issues such as friendliness towards immigration, civil rights, and a healthy respect for science and scholarship is a party that can very comfortably and cogently advocate for free trade.  The Pubs would presumably take a socon "national conservative" turn, and maybe they'd eat further into the white working class, but would also fall further in coastal suburban areas.  

Basically, just a acceleration of the trends we've seen over the past 15 years anyway.  The Dems would  continue to struggle in the House, but should be fine for the Presidency.

This could be the map in a relatively even year:

Dem: 255
Rep: 190
Tossup: 86

Not too far from what we have now; the Dems drop in the Midwest, but work down the southeast coast, solidify the Southwest (though Arizona is pretty stubborn), and break through in Alaska.

[Blue3]

Protectionism is dead in reality. If somehow re-enacted, it would only hurt us.

And honestly, the only reasons trade should be regulated are for labor/consumer/environmental protections.

[H. Ross Peron]

Protectionism vs. free trade is frankly a very minor issue in the political battles of today, and this arrangement is also both not too far from what we already have, as well as arguably more ideologically consistent.  A social liberal Democratic party that gets the bulk of its vote from a coalition between educated, secular whites and minorities, and appeal to them on issues such as friendliness towards immigration, civil rights, and a healthy respect for science and scholarship is a party that can very comfortably and cogently advocate for free trade.  The Pubs would presumably take a socon "national conservative" turn, and maybe they'd eat further into the white working class, but would also fall further in coastal suburban areas.  

Basically, just a acceleration of the trends we've seen over the past 15 years anyway.  The Dems would  continue to struggle in the House, but should be fine for the Presidency.

This could be the map in a relatively even year:

Dem: 255
Rep: 190
Tossup: 86

Not too far from what we have now; the Dems drop in the Midwest, but work down the southeast coast, solidify the Southwest (though Arizona is pretty stubborn), and break through in Alaska.

I'd say Arizona and Montana would turn purple before Alaska does but otherwise this is spot-on.

[Indy Texas]

Protectionism vs. free trade is frankly a very minor issue in the political battles of today, and this arrangement is also both not too far from what we already have, as well as arguably more ideologically consistent.  A social liberal Democratic party that gets the bulk of its vote from a coalition between educated, secular whites and minorities, and appeal to them on issues such as friendliness towards immigration, civil rights, and a healthy respect for science and scholarship is a party that can very comfortably and cogently advocate for free trade.  The Pubs would presumably take a socon "national conservative" turn, and maybe they'd eat further into the white working class, but would also fall further in coastal suburban areas.  

Basically, just a acceleration of the trends we've seen over the past 15 years anyway.  The Dems would  continue to struggle in the House, but should be fine for the Presidency.

This could be the map in a relatively even year:

Dem: 255
Rep: 190
Tossup: 86

Not too far from what we have now; the Dems drop in the Midwest, but work down the southeast coast, solidify the Southwest (though Arizona is pretty stubborn), and break through in Alaska.

I'd say Arizona and Montana would turn purple before Alaska does but otherwise this is spot-on.

Even if the rest of the world retaliates for the GOP's tariffs by refusing to buy any of Alaska's oil?

[TNF]

GOP comes within a hair's width of winning, though would need to win enough Latinos in the Southwest to ultimately flip the map in their favor. Nevertheless, a much better showing for the Republicans, while the Democrats do better in states that heavily depend upon agriculture and "creative class" centers, allowing them to permanently flip NC and GA, while the Republicans pry off PA and MI.

[traininthedistance]

GOP comes within a hair's width of winning, though would need to win enough Latinos in the Southwest to ultimately flip the map in their favor. Nevertheless, a much better showing for the Republicans, while the Democrats do better in states that heavily depend upon agriculture and "creative class" centers, allowing them to permanently flip NC and GA, while the Republicans pry off PA and MI.

Minnesota would remain Dem in this scenario; the Twin Cities metro has much less rust on it than your average Midwestern area. 

[Sol]

GOP comes within a hair's width of winning, though would need to win enough Latinos in the Southwest to ultimately flip the map in their favor. Nevertheless, a much better showing for the Republicans, while the Democrats do better in states that heavily depend upon agriculture and "creative class" centers, allowing them to permanently flip NC and GA, while the Republicans pry off PA and MI.

Minnesota would remain Dem in this scenario; the Twin Cities metro has much less rust on it than your average Midwestern area. 

What about the Iron Range/Duluth area?

[traininthedistance]

GOP comes within a hair's width of winning, though would need to win enough Latinos in the Southwest to ultimately flip the map in their favor. Nevertheless, a much better showing for the Republicans, while the Democrats do better in states that heavily depend upon agriculture and "creative class" centers, allowing them to permanently flip NC and GA, while the Republicans pry off PA and MI.

Minnesota would remain Dem in this scenario; the Twin Cities metro has much less rust on it than your average Midwestern area. 

What about the Iron Range/Duluth area?

The Iron Range would move in the other direction, yes... but it's also getting smaller while the Twin Cities area gets larger, so it wouldn't be enough.  A protectionist GOP could basically gain Duluth etc. at the expense of Shakopee etc., and that's not a winning tradeoff.

[opebo]

Democrats wouldn't lose every time but would generally lose with these line-ups.

[batmacumba]

No chance for NE rural states turning to the GOP, like Minnesota?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

We're not in the NE...or rural for that matter. And train explained why not.

[Dr. Cynic]

Pennsylvania was always the "protectionist" state historically and if that was the only issue, whatever party supported it, would certainly win.

[TeePee4Prez]

Pennsylvania was always the "protectionist" state historically and if that was the only issue, whatever party supported it, would certainly win.

Not 100% sure about that.  Philadelphia proper would be still 70% Dem and the suburbs would move even more to the Dems.  PA is an enigma.  You have economic liberals/social conservatives primarily in older industrial areas and economic conservatives/social liberals in the Philly and to a small extent Pittsburgh suburbs.  Sure PA is more protectionist than the nation as a whole, but not sure if other issues would come into play here and I don't think it would be as much an issue as it was before the 1980s.

[Horus]

I don' t think this would have any major change on the electoral map. Maybe VA, NC and GA move a point or two leftwards and the midwest states a point or two rightwards. All in all a draw. This would not be some kind of nail in a supposed Democratic coffin. This issue just isn't important to most people.