When will Tennessee become competitive?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Never under the current conditions; it's been trending toward the GOP since 2000.

[Skill and Chance]

Nashville suburbs continue to grow and flip circa 2040-50?  Impossible anytime before then IMO.

[bobloblaw]

It's kind of ignorant to live under this assumption that every growing state is on this inevitable march toward the Democratic Party.  Things will change over the next several decades.

Parties die when they get too extreme, and the Republicans are past their point. Eventually, Republicans will be outnumbered in every state, if you're talking about actual supporters. Republicans in government will hang on longer though.

The GOP has more elected members than at anytime since 1928. So I think the GOP is not quite past their point. Sheesh

[bobloblaw]

The fact we are having this conversation means the original poster has no clue why VA, NC and even GA have become competitive or may become competitive.


First off TN has 16% Black vote compared to 20% in VA, over 20% in NC and  31% in GA.
TN lacks the govt employees that VA has and the high tech centers and universities that NC has. Both attract white liberals.

TN may have 4 urban areas but 2 of them are solid GOP. CHA and Knoxville.

If anything TN will become MORE GOP in the future as the percent of the white vote that goes GOP continues to rise.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Nashville suburbs continue to grow and flip circa 2040-50?  Impossible anytime before then IMO.

The Nashville suburbs are very Republican yet their growth would help Democrats?

[SWE]

2048

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Nashville suburbs continue to grow and flip circa 2040-50?  Impossible anytime before then IMO.

The Nashville suburbs are very Republican yet their growth would help Democrats?

But will they still be as Republican 10 years from now?

Orlando used to be very Republican. Look at it now.

[bobloblaw]

Nashville suburbs continue to grow and flip circa 2040-50?  Impossible anytime before then IMO.

The Nashville suburbs are very Republican yet their growth would help Democrats?

But will they still be as Republican 10 years from now?

Orlando used to be very Republican. Look at it now.

Are you that dense? Orlando has gone from GOP to Dem becasue of a mass of Puerto Ricans who have moved there. Are PRs moving to Nashville in mass???

[MATTROSE94]

Probably not for the next few decades (though I do think that Hillary Clinton is going to perform a point or two better there than Obama).

[RFayette]

No evidence at all TN is trending Democratic, so..........

[pbrower2a]

Suburbia is generally newer in the R states than in D states. The newer suburbs of the South and Southwest (as of Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and Phoenix) have newer infrastructure that costs less to maintain than is the case in the older suburbs of most D states. Suburbs ten years old generally don't have large numbers of under-employed people in their twenties still living with their parents or under a heavy load of student debt.  Suburbs forty years old have them, and those kids generally have no cause to vote Republican.  Debtors tend toward the Left so that they can get debt relief from the inflationary tendencies of loose monetary and fiscal policy; creditors want their assets of others' debts to them to have real value and want labor cheap and the money supply rigidly constrained.

R states often have low levels of educational achievement, so student loans might not be such a political problem even in the suburbs.

But add to that - the newest suburbs tend to still have some rural feel  with low costs of infrastructure. Newer suburbs -- let us say those around Atlanta, Dallas, or Phoenix -- have yet to get large numbers of poor people. Their infrastructure is still fairly new and little the worse for wear.  The older suburbs have aging infrastructure in need of repair and higher taxes as a result. Many have seen their first wave of housing (post-WWII bungalows and ranches built for WWII veterans) demolished in favor of apartment complexes which crowd more people and cars into a city. Suburbs of Cleveland, Chicago, and even San Francisco are getting an increasingly urban feel, and voters show that. California started going reliably Democratic in Presidential elections as many of its suburbs lost all traces of rural character as the subdivisions reached age 30 or so in the 1990s.

So contrast Carrollton, Texas with Southfield, Michigan -- or even Hayward, California.  Carrollton was growing rapidly in the 1980s; Hayward was growing rapidly in the 1960s; Southfield was growing rapidly in the 1950s.  

[crash1984]

If it was just Middle Tennessee and West Tennessee (basically everything in the central time zone minus Marion, Sequatchie, Bledsoe and Cumberland Counties) then it would be Romney 1,391,314 and Obama 1,227,683 which would be about 53.12% for Romney and 46.88% for Obama which means a point margin of 6.24 Even though 6.24 does not sound like a lot you are asking for over 160,000 votes and quite frankly I don't think they are there. Memphis and Nashville are strongholds for Democrats but the suburbs are the opposite. Especially when you look at Rutherford and Williamson counties. Truth be told I could see it being the Democrats version of Minnesota.

However when you factor in east Tennessee suddenly it is no longer competitive. In Knox county Romney got about 50,000 more votes, in Hamilton County Romney got 20,000 more votes. Also you have the tri-cities region in northeast Tennessee which when you combine all the counties Romney got 85,051 more votes. You add all those and suddenly Tennessee is no longer on the table.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Knox County being so strongly Republican is a mystery to me. But that won't last forever.

[Adam Griffin]

Suburbia is generally newer in the R states than in D states. The newer suburbs of the South and Southwest (as of Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and Phoenix) have newer infrastructure that costs less to maintain than is the case in the older suburbs of most D states. Suburbs ten years old generally don't have large numbers of under-employed people in their twenties still living with their parents or under a heavy load of student debt.  Suburbs forty years old have them, and those kids generally have no cause to vote Republican.  Debtors tend toward the Left so that they can get debt relief from the inflationary tendencies of loose monetary and fiscal policy; creditors want their assets of others' debts to them to have real value and want labor cheap and the money supply rigidly constrained.

R states often have low levels of educational achievement, so student loans might not be such a political problem even in the suburbs.

But add to that - the newest suburbs tend to still have some rural feel  with low costs of infrastructure. Newer suburbs -- let us say those around Atlanta, Dallas, or Phoenix -- have yet to get large numbers of poor people. Their infrastructure is still fairly new and little the worse for wear.  The older suburbs have aging infrastructure in need of repair and higher taxes as a result. Many have seen their first wave of housing (post-WWII bungalows and ranches built for WWII veterans) demolished in favor of apartment complexes which crowd more people and cars into a city. Suburbs of Cleveland, Chicago, and even San Francisco are getting an increasingly urban feel, and voters show that. California started going reliably Democratic in Presidential elections as many of its suburbs lost all traces of rural character as the subdivisions reached age 30 or so in the 1990s.

So contrast Carrollton, Texas with Southfield, Michigan -- or even Hayward, California.  Carrollton was growing rapidly in the 1980s; Hayward was growing rapidly in the 1960s; Southfield was growing rapidly in the 1950s.  

This is definitely not the case in Atlanta's suburbs. It didn't help that the suburbs here (and in many other metros I imagine as well) were fueled disproportionately throughout the first half of the double aughts by subprime loans and that the individuals who comprised the vast majority of the growth to these areas (non-whites) were also disproportionately impacted by loss of employment during the GR as well. Places like Cobb, Paulding, Douglas and Henry counties were hit pretty hard, with poverty rates doubling (or in some cases, even tripling) between 2006-2011.


Oh, and Tennessee won't be competitive for a long time. The main problem in the South as a whole is that redistricting/gerrymandering will play a huge role in suppressing quality Democratic candidates from rising and funds from raising for the foreseeable future.

[Skill and Chance]

Nashville suburbs continue to grow and flip circa 2040-50?  Impossible anytime before then IMO.

The Nashville suburbs are very Republican yet their growth would help Democrats?

But will they still be as Republican 10 years from now?

Orlando used to be very Republican. Look at it now.

Are you that dense? Orlando has gone from GOP to Dem becasue of a mass of Puerto Ricans who have moved there. Are PRs moving to Nashville in mass???

I was speculating about 30-40 years in the future.  Look at a map of VA in 1976.  Ford did very, very well in the big suburban counties Obama flipped in 2008.

[Ashbringer]

Probably never, the TN Gop party is moderate.

[TNF]

Tennessee is one of the leading centers of industry in the US, so assuming that those centers of industry (in say, the automobile industry in the East) got organized, politics there could look very different. Of course, the decline of the UAW into what is essentially a company union, plus four decades of an assault on labor by the GOP (with the Democrats looking the other way) make the possibility of Tennessee shifting course very remote indeed.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Probably never, the TN Gop party is moderate.

They're certainly not moderate. Anyone remember when they interfered with that union election?

[TNF]

Probably never, the TN Gop party is moderate.

They're certainly not moderate. Anyone remember when they interfered with that union election?

For liberals, a "moderate" Republican is anyone that isn't vociferously against identity politics. All the other policies they subscribe to are a-okay.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Probably never, the TN Gop party is moderate.

They're certainly not moderate. Anyone remember when they interfered with that union election?

For liberals, a "moderate" Republican is anyone that isn't vociferously against identity politics. All the other policies they subscribe to are a-okay.

Not trolling, I'm genuinely curious (I'm very impressed with your knowledge level and think I'd enjoy reading your thoughts): do you consider any current, elected Republicans to be moderates?  And if not, when do you think the GOP last had legitimate moderates (and why, of course)?

[Boston Bread]

For liberals, a "moderate" Republican is anyone that isn't vociferously against identity politics. All the other policies they subscribe to are a-okay.

If Democrats are playing identity politics, by the same standards Republicans are playing identity politics with white Christians. A moderate republican would then be one whose identity politics are closer to that of democrats, in that sense.

[Mr. Morden]

I don't know.  Maybe drafting Marcus Mariota would be a start?  They still have a long way to go though.

[TNF]

Probably never, the TN Gop party is moderate.

They're certainly not moderate. Anyone remember when they interfered with that union election?

For liberals, a "moderate" Republican is anyone that isn't vociferously against identity politics. All the other policies they subscribe to are a-okay.

Not trolling, I'm genuinely curious (I'm very impressed with your knowledge level and think I'd enjoy reading your thoughts): do you consider any current, elected Republicans to be moderates?  And if not, when do you think the GOP last had legitimate moderates (and why, of course)?

I would say your best bet in finding one would be to either look in New England, some industrial areas of the Midwest, or in major metropolitan centers. I'm not going by the conventional liberal definition of 'A Republican that doesn't hate gays is a moderate', but rather more of a 'Republican who is willing to compromise with organized labor or will vote for minimum wage increases' is what I'd say would define what a 'moderate' Republican might look more like.

There were more Republicans like that from the period of the foundation of the GOP until the 1980s, but the parties have become much more homogenous since then. I would wager that there are more than a few Republican voters, however, that are much more inclined toward a populist kind of outlook than they might otherwise suggest. I know a lot of working class Republicans though, so that might prejudice my view in that respect.

[Skill and Chance]

Probably never, the TN Gop party is moderate.

They're certainly not moderate. Anyone remember when they interfered with that union election?

For liberals, a "moderate" Republican is anyone that isn't vociferously against identity politics. All the other policies they subscribe to are a-okay.

Not trolling, I'm genuinely curious (I'm very impressed with your knowledge level and think I'd enjoy reading your thoughts): do you consider any current, elected Republicans to be moderates?  And if not, when do you think the GOP last had legitimate moderates (and why, of course)?

I would say your best bet in finding one would be to either look in New England, some industrial areas of the Midwest, or in major metropolitan centers. I'm not going by the conventional liberal definition of 'A Republican that doesn't hate gays is a moderate', but rather more of a 'Republican who is willing to compromise with organized labor or will vote for minimum wage increases' is what I'd say would define what a 'moderate' Republican might look more like.

There were more Republicans like that from the period of the foundation of the GOP until the 1980s, but the parties have become much more homogenous since then. I would wager that there are more than a few Republican voters, however, that are much more inclined toward a populist kind of outlook than they might otherwise suggest. I know a lot of working class Republicans though, so that might prejudice my view in that respect.

Couldn't they just have been more supportive of unions pre-1980 because more of the public was unionized or wanted to be unionized back then?  Since 1960 or so, we've seen a tremendous decline in physically dangerous, skilled professions and a rise in service work that either requires advanced education and pays 2-5X the median income or has no barriers to entry and is often done by non-citizens.  Suppose that in 2075, maintaining a teleportation grid requires 30 million workers and is comparably dangerous to 19th century coal mining.  Wouldn't unions come roaring back?

[Mr. Illini]

Probably never, the TN Gop party is moderate.

They're certainly not moderate. Anyone remember when they interfered with that union election?

For liberals, a "moderate" Republican is anyone that isn't vociferously against identity politics. All the other policies they subscribe to are a-okay.

Not trolling, I'm genuinely curious (I'm very impressed with your knowledge level and think I'd enjoy reading your thoughts): do you consider any current, elected Republicans to be moderates?  And if not, when do you think the GOP last had legitimate moderates (and why, of course)?

I would say your best bet in finding one would be to either look in New England, some industrial areas of the Midwest, or in major metropolitan centers. I'm not going by the conventional liberal definition of 'A Republican that doesn't hate gays is a moderate', but rather more of a 'Republican who is willing to compromise with organized labor or will vote for minimum wage increases' is what I'd say would define what a 'moderate' Republican might look more like.

There were more Republicans like that from the period of the foundation of the GOP until the 1980s, but the parties have become much more homogenous since then. I would wager that there are more than a few Republican voters, however, that are much more inclined toward a populist kind of outlook than they might otherwise suggest. I know a lot of working class Republicans though, so that might prejudice my view in that respect.

Our bimbo GOP governor included a minimum wage increase proposal in his SOTS speech yesterday, although it is pretty pathetic ($1.75 over seven years).

As for OP, not all suburbs are the same. Growth in Chicago's suburbs has certainly meant a more cosmopolitan and left-leaning suburban electorate. Growth in Nashville's suburbs is largely seeing an influx of northern Republicans and new-money types from the south that lean to the right. There's not indication that growth in suburban Nashville will mean any left shift in Tennessee's voting, much less make it competitive. Meanwhile its rural areas continue one of the sharpest GOP turns in the country, especially in the eastern portion of the state.