Are there any states actually trending R?

[Matty]

I am talking long term.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Honestly, I don't think so, and it's frightening.  Once issues like gay marriage die down, I see the inroads we've made with blue collar Whites starting to stagnate or even reverse.

[Flake]

Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Missouri seem to keep getting more Republicanized.

[IceSpear]

It will be interesting to see which way trends move once Obama is no longer on the ballot. 2016 should answer this question.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Possibly West Virginia or maybe even Arkansas. But that's being generous.

Kentucky is too urban. Gains in eastern Kentucky are more than offset by losses in central Kentucky. (Franklin County flipped to Obama in 2012.)

[illegaloperation]

Of cause there are.

Even if the whole country is moving to the left, the states that move slower to the left slower than the national average trend Republican.

[Sol]

North Dakota.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Sure, Pennsylvania has trended R for 5 of the past elections, and New Hamphsire has trended R for 3 of the past 4 elections. However, don't expect them to be won by today's Republicans, as the party is too right wing to even win an election. If the GOP were to modernize on immigration, gay marriage, and such, these would be the first Democratic lean states to go.

[Tieteobserver]

Outside of national elections PA and MI had been trending R for quite a while. MN is not doing that bad too.

I don't see the GOP gaining ground on a near future, though, unfortunately.

Maybe Obama's election marked the beginning of a 7th party system, akin to the 4th, but dominated by the Dems?

[Never]

There are plenty of states that are moving towards the Republicans. What the party should be worried about is that most of the states trending GOP are not experiencing significant population growth, which means it would be difficult to make gains in the electoral college.

WV, KY, TN, MO, AR, PA, NH, MI, WI, IA, ND, SD, WY, UT.

[bedstuy]

Outside of national elections PA and MI had been trending R for quite a while. MN is not doing that bad too.

I don't see the GOP gaining ground on a near future, though, unfortunately.

Maybe Obama's election marked the beginning of a 7th party system, akin to the 4th, but dominated by the Dems?

I don't agree.  I think in all of those states Democrats would be in better shape to win a statewide election today than 10, 15 or 20 years ago, especially Minnesota.  Minnesota is trending towards Democrats.  Every statewide office has been in Democratic hands since 2006 and Republicans haven't hit 50% in a statewide since when?  1994?

The better way to look at these trends is not statewide, but rather through voter demographics.  Republicans have been consolidating rural voters, Christian fundamentalists and conservative Christians, Southern whites, NASCAR dudes and significantly improving among lower class whites.  That's the general trend.  In some states, that coalition is dominant.  In other states, it gives the GOP a consistent 45% of the vote, but only wins in a GOP friendly national environment.  That's sort of where we're at now.  The GOP is consolidating their demographics, but not expanding whatsoever.

[Free Bird]

Yes. Arkansas, Louisianna, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Arizona, and in the right conditions, I see Wisconsin and Pennsylvania getting some red. Maybe even Michigan in a wave. Illinois, though definitiely not nationally (thanks Chicago) is becoming redder statewide IMO

[SWE]

Yes. Arkansas, Louisianna, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Arizona, and in the right conditions, I see Wisconsin and Pennsylvania getting some red. Maybe even Michigan in a wave. Illinois, though definitiely not nationally (thanks Chicago) is becoming redder statewide IMO

[MATTROSE94]

I would probably say that Arkansas, Missouri, West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee are some of the only states that are trending Republican. Arkansas, Missouri and Tennessee seem to be trending Republican due to social issues such as gay marriage, gun control and abortion, while West Virginia and Kentucky seem to be trending Republican due to the Democrats push for environmentalist policies and perceived rhetoric against the coal industry.

[sg0508]

Yes. The problem is that most of these states are already solidly "red".

[Sol]

Outside of national elections PA and MI had been trending R for quite a while. MN is not doing that bad too.

I don't see the GOP gaining ground on a near future, though, unfortunately.

Maybe Obama's election marked the beginning of a 7th party system, akin to the 4th, but dominated by the Dems?

I don't agree.  I think in all of those states Democrats would be in better shape to win a statewide election today than 10, 15 or 20 years ago, especially Minnesota.  Minnesota is trending towards Democrats.  Every statewide office has been in Democratic hands since 2006 and Republicans haven't hit 50% in a statewide since when?  1994?

The better way to look at these trends is not statewide, but rather through voter demographics.  Republicans have been consolidating rural voters, Christian fundamentalists and conservative Christians, Southern whites, NASCAR dudes and significantly improving among lower class whites.  That's the general trend.  In some states, that coalition is dominant.  In other states, it gives the GOP a consistent 45% of the vote, but only wins in a GOP friendly national environment.  That's sort of where we're at now.  The GOP is consolidating their demographics, but not expanding whatsoever.

MN actually has been trending R if you look at presidential results, though some of that is illusion, considering MN was Mondale's home state and Bush I's bad performance in rural areas. However, the state-level Democrats are very well organized and funded, while the state GOP is scandal-ridden and disorganized.

Yes. Arkansas, Louisianna, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Arizona, and in the right conditions, I see Wisconsin and Pennsylvania getting some red. Maybe even Michigan in a wave. Illinois, though definitiely not nationally (thanks Chicago) is becoming redder statewide IMO

'Tis true, actually. Katrina caused NOLA to lose a lot of people, and the Cajuns have been moving to the right for a while.

[sg0508]

Minnesota was trending to the GOP for the first decade of the new millenium, but now the democratic party is stronger there. Look at the politicians leading the state at the state and national level.  The GOP has nobody.

MN is yet another state where the GOP has nobody to lead them.

[Person Man]

Then there is a cadre of states where people would be willing to trend a new direction, but the other side is just boring, inept and corrupt.
An example of this is definitely Florida for the Democrats and maybe Colorado, Minnesota and Wisconsin for the Republicans. And then there are states that are so far gone for one side, that the other party uses it as an excuse to become extremely corrupt. Kansas, Illinois and maybe Wyoming coming to mind. 

[bedstuy]

Outside of national elections PA and MI had been trending R for quite a while. MN is not doing that bad too.

I don't see the GOP gaining ground on a near future, though, unfortunately.

Maybe Obama's election marked the beginning of a 7th party system, akin to the 4th, but dominated by the Dems?

I don't agree.  I think in all of those states Democrats would be in better shape to win a statewide election today than 10, 15 or 20 years ago, especially Minnesota.  Minnesota is trending towards Democrats.  Every statewide office has been in Democratic hands since 2006 and Republicans haven't hit 50% in a statewide since when?  1994?

The better way to look at these trends is not statewide, but rather through voter demographics.  Republicans have been consolidating rural voters, Christian fundamentalists and conservative Christians, Southern whites, NASCAR dudes and significantly improving among lower class whites.  That's the general trend.  In some states, that coalition is dominant.  In other states, it gives the GOP a consistent 45% of the vote, but only wins in a GOP friendly national environment.  That's sort of where we're at now.  The GOP is consolidating their demographics, but not expanding whatsoever.

MN actually has been trending R if you look at presidential results, though some of that is illusion, considering MN was Mondale's home state and Bush I's bad performance in rural areas. However, the state-level Democrats are very well organized and funded, while the state GOP is scandal-ridden and disorganized.

It's more complicated than that, but I would argue MN is not trending R.  There are a few trends happening at the same time. 

The exurban counties, where Republicans get their votes, exploded in population between 2000 and 2012.  The Twin Cities and the range staying flat in population while the exurbs boomed should have made MN trend R significantly.  But, all that did was make up for the GOP increasingly getting destroyed in the Twin Cities proper and the moderate vote solidifying behind the DFL in the state.  Republicans can count on a more sold share of the vote, but it has gotten harder to win the state.  It's just very difficult to make up for Hennepin, St. Louis and Ramsey Counties if they go DFL 60%+.

You could argue that long term that the Republican exurbs are going to grow fast  enough to balance out the urban areas.  But, the Republican margin from exurban growth is going to be balanced by Hispanic population growth and growing diversity in the Twin Cities suburbs.

[Non Swing Voter]

Thankfully, the problem the Republicans have is that most of the states trending towards them are not swing states by any stretch.  On the other hand, this is a list of states trending Democrat: Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, New Hampshire, probably even Florida.

The Republican party isn't a national party, it's a party that has overwhelming appeal in pockets of America that do not and will never represent a majority of the country.  Unless it begins appealing to moderate suburban whites and asians again it will not win the White House.

Republicans should be troubled that they're beginning to lose once swing areas like the I-4 corridor and Northern Virginia by overwhelming margins.  Republicans know they can't compete in big cities like Miami and DC, but now they can't even compete in the inner suburbs either.  So basically most of the states where there are no big cities or inner suburbs are trending Republican with a few exceptions, but those states largely don't matter when they are losing Florida, California, and New York.

So nice to see a genuinely awful party be erased from the map like this.

[Never]

Thankfully, the problem the Republicans have is that most of the states trending towards them are not swing states by any stretch.  On the other hand, this is a list of states trending Democrat: Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, New Hampshire, probably even Florida.

The Republican party isn't a national party, it's a party that has overwhelming appeal in pockets of America that do not and will never represent a majority of the country.  Unless it begins appealing to moderate suburban whites and asians again it will not win the White House.

Republicans should be troubled that they're beginning to lose once swing areas like the I-4 corridor and Northern Virginia by overwhelming margins.  Republicans know they can't compete in big cities like Miami and DC, but now they can't even compete in the inner suburbs either.  So basically most of the states where there are no big cities or inner suburbs are trending Republican with a few exceptions, but those states largely don't matter when they are losing Florida, California, and New York.

So nice to see a genuinely awful party be erased from the map like this.

I don't see how Republicans are not a national party. They have the House (and would regardless of gerrymandering, due to Democrats living in more urban, condensed congressional districts than the typical Republican), the majority of state legislatures, the majority of governorships, and they are seriously viewed as having a chance to take the Senate back for the first time in eight years. Sure, they might not have an easy path to the White House due to the fact that Democrats dominate in populous states like CA and NY that I couldn't get paid to live in, but for the most part, the states you listed as trending Democratic either have Republicans in office at the state level or are viewed as having competitive races. I find it amusing that you ignored the fact that PA is definitiely trending Republican. Is it too much for you that any large state would have the nerve to move to the right?

[IceSpear]

Thankfully, the problem the Republicans have is that most of the states trending towards them are not swing states by any stretch.  On the other hand, this is a list of states trending Democrat: Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, New Hampshire, probably even Florida.

The Republican party isn't a national party, it's a party that has overwhelming appeal in pockets of America that do not and will never represent a majority of the country.  Unless it begins appealing to moderate suburban whites and asians again it will not win the White House.

Republicans should be troubled that they're beginning to lose once swing areas like the I-4 corridor and Northern Virginia by overwhelming margins.  Republicans know they can't compete in big cities like Miami and DC, but now they can't even compete in the inner suburbs either.  So basically most of the states where there are no big cities or inner suburbs are trending Republican with a few exceptions, but those states largely don't matter when they are losing Florida, California, and New York.

So nice to see a genuinely awful party be erased from the map like this.

I don't see how Republicans are not a national party. They have the House (and would regardless of gerrymandering, due to Democrats living in more urban, condensed congressional districts than the typical Republican), the majority of state legislatures, the majority of governorships, and they are seriously viewed as having a chance to take the Senate back for the first time in eight years. Sure, they might not have an easy path to the White House due to the fact that Democrats dominate in populous states like CA and NY that I couldn't get paid to live in, but for the most part, the states you listed as trending Democratic either have Republicans in office at the state level or are viewed as having competitive races. I find it amusing that you ignored the fact that PA is definitiely trending Republican. Is it too much for you that any large state would have the nerve to move to the right?

One data point (2012) does not make a trend. PA's relation to the popular vote:

1988: D+4
1992: D+4
1996: D+1
2000: D+5
2004: D+6
2008: D+4
2012: D+1

If PA is very close to or is the tipping point state in 2016, then I'll concede it's trending Republican. Until then, it could just be an outlier like 1996 was.

[pbrower2a]

A state that swings very little in its raw vote might have wild swings with its vote relative to the rest of the country. Minnesota is an extreme example; it was the only state to vote for Walter Mondale in 1984 (49.72% - 49.54%) in basically a 59-41 split for the country as a whole.  That year it was D+10. In 2008 it split 54-44 in a national 53-46 split; it was one of Barack Obama's weaker wins, going D+2 or so.

Minnesota has a very high floor for practically any D Presidential nominee in the general election but a comparatively low ceiling. It was about D+2 for Bill Clinton, who won 49-40-8 in 1996.

Every electoral year has some uniqueness. Nominees matter. Barack Obama got results characteristic of a Democrat winning in a landslide in 2008 in about 2/3 of American states (he won Indiana that year) with Nixon-like margins yet lost in the rest of America by McGovern-like margins. Such stark results demonstrate how polarizing he was as a candidate.

Democrats haven't won more than 400 electoral votes (which would take about a 59-41 margin nationwide). But if the Democratic nominee got such a national margin, Minnesota might go 'only' 56-44  and show itself R+3 that year. Would that show that Minnesota was drifting rightward?  Hardly. It would show that Minnesota is ... well, Minnesota.

[Non Swing Voter]

Thankfully, the problem the Republicans have is that most of the states trending towards them are not swing states by any stretch.  On the other hand, this is a list of states trending Democrat: Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, New Hampshire, probably even Florida.

The Republican party isn't a national party, it's a party that has overwhelming appeal in pockets of America that do not and will never represent a majority of the country.  Unless it begins appealing to moderate suburban whites and asians again it will not win the White House.

Republicans should be troubled that they're beginning to lose once swing areas like the I-4 corridor and Northern Virginia by overwhelming margins.  Republicans know they can't compete in big cities like Miami and DC, but now they can't even compete in the inner suburbs either.  So basically most of the states where there are no big cities or inner suburbs are trending Republican with a few exceptions, but those states largely don't matter when they are losing Florida, California, and New York.

So nice to see a genuinely awful party be erased from the map like this.

I don't see how Republicans are not a national party. They have the House (and would regardless of gerrymandering, due to Democrats living in more urban, condensed congressional districts than the typical Republican), the majority of state legislatures, the majority of governorships, and they are seriously viewed as having a chance to take the Senate back for the first time in eight years. Sure, they might not have an easy path to the White House due to the fact that Democrats dominate in populous states like CA and NY that I couldn't get paid to live in, but for the most part, the states you listed as trending Democratic either have Republicans in office at the state level or are viewed as having competitive races. I find it amusing that you ignored the fact that PA is definitiely trending Republican. Is it too much for you that any large state would have the nerve to move to the right?

This topic is related to Presidential Election trends, so I'm only going to respond to your post that analyzes the national party based on that aspect...  (I find it amusing that you'd ignore the topic so badly, is it too much to you to respond based on the scope of the actual post?):

I do not view Pennsylvania as one of the highly populous states such as Texas, Florida, California, and New York, especially since it has a lower population than all of them and will likely lose population over the next few cycles. 

Glad you agree Republicans have a bad path to the White House.

[Never]

Thankfully, the problem the Republicans have is that most of the states trending towards them are not swing states by any stretch.  On the other hand, this is a list of states trending Democrat: Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, New Hampshire, probably even Florida.

The Republican party isn't a national party, it's a party that has overwhelming appeal in pockets of America that do not and will never represent a majority of the country.  Unless it begins appealing to moderate suburban whites and asians again it will not win the White House.

Republicans should be troubled that they're beginning to lose once swing areas like the I-4 corridor and Northern Virginia by overwhelming margins.  Republicans know they can't compete in big cities like Miami and DC, but now they can't even compete in the inner suburbs either.  So basically most of the states where there are no big cities or inner suburbs are trending Republican with a few exceptions, but those states largely don't matter when they are losing Florida, California, and New York.

So nice to see a genuinely awful party be erased from the map like this.

I don't see how Republicans are not a national party. They have the House (and would regardless of gerrymandering, due to Democrats living in more urban, condensed congressional districts than the typical Republican), the majority of state legislatures, the majority of governorships, and they are seriously viewed as having a chance to take the Senate back for the first time in eight years. Sure, they might not have an easy path to the White House due to the fact that Democrats dominate in populous states like CA and NY that I couldn't get paid to live in, but for the most part, the states you listed as trending Democratic either have Republicans in office at the state level or are viewed as having competitive races. I find it amusing that you ignored the fact that PA is definitiely trending Republican. Is it too much for you that any large state would have the nerve to move to the right?

This topic is related to Presidential Election trends, so I'm only going to respond to your post that analyzes the national party based on that aspect...  (I find it amusing that you'd ignore the topic so badly, is it too much to you to respond based on the scope of the actual post?):

I do not view Pennsylvania as one of the highly populous states such as Texas, Florida, California, and New York, especially since it has a lower population than all of them and will likely lose population over the next few cycles.  

Glad you agree Republicans have a bad path to the White House.

Okay, you said that Republicans were a "regional party", and I mentioned some info about the state of that GOP outside of what directly relates Presidential Election Trends to refute your own statement that you posted under this topic. Based on that, I believe that I am justified in posting what I did. Is it too much for you to not act like you always have to be right and that you know everything? That is how you are coming off as.

New York (which I'm sure we both agree is Safe D) is probably not going to grow that much in the future, Florida is not going to become a solidly Democratic state, and Texas is probably going to go Lean R at best for the Democrats in the coming years, and California (another Safe D state) is stagnant population wise. Take that as you will, but it would not appear that things are perfect for the Democrats in what you define as large states.

I don't think the Republicans have an easy path to the White House just like Demcorats didn't have an easy path in 2000/2004. You are implying that I believe the Republicans will always have a bad path to the White House. In fact, I think the "genuinely awful Republican party" that you seem to hate with a passion definitely has opportunities at repaving its road to 270 electoral votes as it becomes more competitive in some parts of the Midwest.