Who's next in line to get west-virginianized?

[IceSpear]

Kentucky already is.

[IceSpear]

MO and PA both have high African American populations and strong urban bases (and in PA, the Philly suburbs are Democratic as well). Compare that to the mostly homogenous rural white population of West Virginia. By that metric, considering that Kentucky basically already has become West Virginiaized, Iowa is probably the best choice. Still, even Iowa isn't particularly likely, due to things like the map Miles posted and the quirks of the state. The Iowa caucus gives Democrats a voice in the state, whereas states with demographic makeups similar to Iowa are simply written off.

[IceSpear]

Missouri and Kentucky have already/are in the process of shifting R.

The evidence that Pennsylvania is trending R isn't that convincing. In 2012, its PVI was D + 1.48, which is the lowest its been since 1996, when it was D +0.7.  The PVI has been decreasing since 2004, but its not clear if this is a real trend or random fluctuations.

Iowa is interesting.  Its demographics would tell you that its a Republican leaning state, yet its consistently been a swing state.  I don't think that's going to change, but I suppose we'll have to see how 2016 will play out.
 

The problem Democrats have with whites is a southern problem. The rest of the country's white vote around 45 % Democrat. Southern racist whites skew the number nationally. Iowa should be fine long term.

One state to worry about long term is PA. The Democratic collapse in the western appalachian region is good news for Republicans.

It's of no concern at all unless Republicans figure out how to make inroads in the eastern suburbs.

[IceSpear]

Missouri and Kentucky have already/are in the process of shifting R.

The evidence that Pennsylvania is trending R isn't that convincing. In 2012, its PVI was D + 1.48, which is the lowest its been since 1996, when it was D +0.7.  The PVI has been decreasing since 2004, but its not clear if this is a real trend or random fluctuations.

Iowa is interesting.  Its demographics would tell you that its a Republican leaning state, yet its consistently been a swing state.  I don't think that's going to change, but I suppose we'll have to see how 2016 will play out.
 

The problem Democrats have with whites is a southern problem. The rest of the country's white vote around 45 % Democrat. Southern racist whites skew the number nationally. Iowa should be fine long term.

One state to worry about long term is PA. The Democratic collapse in the western appalachian region is good news for Republicans.

It's of no concern at all unless Republicans figure out how to make inroads in the eastern suburbs.

To me, it seems as if Romney was a good fit for Pennsylvania. Yes, he lost the state, but he did fairly well in the suburbs of Pennsylvania and especially well in the western part of the state. What killed him in PA was the Obama GOTV machine in Philadelphia. Heck, Romney received ZERO votes in some Philadelphia precincts. He did even worse than McCain there. However, if the Republicans really focus on Pennsylvania and cut the margin in the Philadelphia suburbs and Allegheny County (which is possible), it will soon become a competitive swing state (which it never really was in the last two decades).

Romney didn't have enough working class appeal also. He didn't do well enough in the Lehigh valley and that pretty much goes with the winner. But yeah, Philly is a tough nut to crack and yet anothe reason why Paul is so interesting because if you combine say Paul's social views that appeal to African Americans+econcomic opportunity zones, with the education focus of Bush behind a third candidate (like one of the Midwest Governors), you have a solid combination for Pennsylvania that can get back above 20% in Philly and win Lehigh. Kasich/Paul?

I've always thought Paul was a high risk, high reward candidate. I could see him possibly changing some seemingly solid dynamics, completely flaming out, or just performing as a generic R. It would be quite interesting.