Republicans Silent Majority Coalition vs New Democrat Coalition(2010s census)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 05:18:33 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Republicans Silent Majority Coalition vs New Democrat Coalition(2010s census)
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Republicans Silent Majority Coalition vs New Democrat Coalition(2010s census)  (Read 4495 times)
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,260


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 05, 2015, 01:26:50 PM »

Both These Coalition gave theses parties nearly locks in the electoral college. For a State to be part of the Coalition they must have gone to the Dominant party at least five out of six times.(Note that I am counting George Wallace States as Republican as they would have gone to Nixon if he werent in the race)


Silent Majority Coalition(1968-1992)



Republicans Get to 355 with this map

New Democrat Coalition(1992-Present)



Democrats get to 257 in this map


The Silent Majority Coalition gave the Republicans a lock in the electoral college as if they won all those states they would still win the election decisively. The New Democrat Coalition in the same way give the Democrats a Decisive advantage as the Democrats only then need to take either Virginia, Ohio, Florida, or a combination of Nevada and Colorado to win.
Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2015, 04:00:56 PM »

New Republican Senate Majority Coalition:



If Republicans win both Senate races in these blue states, they will have an eternal majority in the Senate. They wouldn't even need to win races in the red states then.
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2015, 05:14:46 PM »

Have we ever seen ANY evidence to suggest that a large majority of Wallace voters would have voted for a pro-civil rights Republican from California, or is this just comforting revisionism by 21st Century liberals?
Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2015, 05:23:25 PM »

Have we ever seen ANY evidence to suggest that a large majority of Wallace voters would have voted for a pro-civil rights Republican from California, or is this just comforting revisionism by 21st Century liberals?

Of the five states he won, only Arkansas had voted for LBJ in 1964, and all voted for Nixon in 1972.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,486
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2015, 05:32:53 PM »

New Republican Senate Majority Coalition:



If Republicans win both Senate races in these blue states, they will have an eternal majority in the Senate. They wouldn't even need to win races in the red states then.

The Senate actually isn't that bad for Dems, certainly nothing like the House.  Obama did at least as well as his national margin in 25 states, and Florida was only R+1.  That's actually very fair and might actually favor Democrats when you consider that small states are historically much more likely to elect the "wrong" party state wide, whereas a 10 EV state that only mildly leans one way or the other is close to a lock for the dominant party. 
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,260


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2015, 07:17:26 PM »

Have we ever seen ANY evidence to suggest that a large majority of Wallace voters would have voted for a pro-civil rights Republican from California, or is this just comforting revisionism by 21st Century liberals?

The South really was trending Republican since 1948 and it would have gone to Nixon in 1968. Humprhey was also pro civil rights, and was more liberal nearly ever issue so I dont think the South would vote for Humprehey. Lastly I'm not a Liberal, I'M a Center Right politically who leans Republican but isnt one due to the Tea Party.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,260


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2015, 07:18:00 PM »

I'm not sure how useful this is considering Carter won the entire South. I guess that's an exception?

That was an outlier
Logged
Ebsy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 05, 2015, 08:33:33 PM »

New Republican Senate Majority Coalition:

If Republicans win both Senate races in these blue states, they will have an eternal majority in the Senate. They wouldn't even need to win races in the red states then.
That's not going to happen though.
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 05, 2015, 10:52:40 PM »
« Edited: April 05, 2015, 10:57:26 PM by Stone Cold Conservative »

Have we ever seen ANY evidence to suggest that a large majority of Wallace voters would have voted for a pro-civil rights Republican from California, or is this just comforting revisionism by 21st Century liberals?

I am not sure I would go ahead and say a "large majority", given the hackishness of many yellow dogs.  Still, HHH was widely despised by racist Dixiecrats largely because he was seen as one of the architects of the Democratic drift towards supporting a Civil Rights plank in the party platform.  I don't believe it is terribly off base to conclude that a number of Wallace supporters would reluctantly back the Civil Rights supporter who at least soothes them with Law and Order rhetoric over the man who pretty much gave them the finger.

That still doesn't make Computer's logic sound, for the reason found in my first sentence.
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 05, 2015, 10:54:55 PM »

Have we ever seen ANY evidence to suggest that a large majority of Wallace voters would have voted for a pro-civil rights Republican from California, or is this just comforting revisionism by 21st Century liberals?

I am not sure I would go ahead and say a "large majority", given the hackishness of many yellow dogs.  Still, HHH was widely despised by racist Dixiecrats largely because he was seen as one of the architects of the Democratic drift towards supporting a Civil Rights plank in the party platform.  I don't believe it is terribly off base to conclude that a number of Wallace supporters would reluctantly back the Civil Rights supporter who at least soothes then with Law and Order rhetoric over the man who pretty much gave them the finger.

I'm not really asserting they'd break for Humphrey without Wallace, I just think it'd be a lot more even of a split than people seem to be suggesting.  Also, I was genuinely curious if anyone had seen a study/poll before.
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 05, 2015, 10:59:32 PM »

Have we ever seen ANY evidence to suggest that a large majority of Wallace voters would have voted for a pro-civil rights Republican from California, or is this just comforting revisionism by 21st Century liberals?

I am not sure I would go ahead and say a "large majority", given the hackishness of many yellow dogs.  Still, HHH was widely despised by racist Dixiecrats largely because he was seen as one of the architects of the Democratic drift towards supporting a Civil Rights plank in the party platform.  I don't believe it is terribly off base to conclude that a number of Wallace supporters would reluctantly back the Civil Rights supporter who at least soothes then with Law and Order rhetoric over the man who pretty much gave them the finger.

I'm not really asserting they'd break for Humphrey without Wallace, I just think it'd be a lot more even of a split than people seem to be suggesting.  Also, I was genuinely curious if anyone had seen a study/poll before.

Of course.

The hackishness of yellow dogs is quite surprising sometimes.
Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 06, 2015, 09:43:22 AM »
« Edited: April 06, 2015, 10:23:06 AM by IndyRep »

New Republican Senate Majority Coalition:

If Republicans win both Senate races in these blue states, they will have an eternal majority in the Senate. They wouldn't even need to win races in the red states then.
That's not going to happen though.

Oh, I know. Just wanted to demonstrate how stupid this idea of an "eternal majority" is.
Logged
SingingAnalyst
mathstatman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 04, 2015, 08:29:53 PM »

The New Democrat coalition has more staying power and is younger and more diverse, thus giving the Dems an excellent chance (as of May 4, 2015) to keep the WH in 2016. They only thing the new Democrat coalition lacks is much of a presence in the deep south states (SC-GA-AL-MS-LA-AR) and the mountain and plains states, but those states are no longer gaining population as they were in the 1970s and don't have many EVs. The weakness of the Silent Majority is that it was older than 30 and nearly all white, and less than college educated, and thus dying off today.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,260


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 21, 2016, 10:49:42 PM »

Looks like the New Democratic coalition will
Last a 7th election
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 27, 2016, 05:46:19 PM »

New Republican Senate Majority Coalition:



If Republicans win both Senate races in these blue states, they will have an eternal majority in the Senate. They wouldn't even need to win races in the red states then.

The Senate actually isn't that bad for Dems, certainly nothing like the House.  Obama did at least as well as his national margin in 25 states, and Florida was only R+1.  That's actually very fair and might actually favor Democrats when you consider that small states are historically much more likely to elect the "wrong" party state wide, whereas a 10 EV state that only mildly leans one way or the other is close to a lock for the dominant party. 
I think the Senate in terms of gaining a majority for 2016 is Lean(ing) D for now. The House-The Dems get killed in "Southern Congressional Districts" that's why the House is so bad for them.
Logged
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,480
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 27, 2016, 06:54:05 PM »

Maine and Connecticut should be blue on the top map.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,260


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: January 31, 2018, 02:54:41 AM »
« Edited: January 31, 2018, 02:04:24 PM by Old School Republican »

It clear now that neither party will have as dominant coalition as either of these:


For the Democrats this is likely to be their New Coalition from 2020/2024-2040 (States I think will go Democratic 5/6 elections)

If Dems go down the path of Kamala Harris type dems this will likely be the map




Democrats get to 247 with this map(I think OR becomes a tossup in the 2028/2032(Depending on when the first gop win after Trump is. WA becomes a tossup but by 2036/2040.)


If they go the populist route this will be new map:





Dems get 209 with that map


Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,995
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: January 31, 2018, 12:23:19 PM »

It clear now that neither party will have as dominant coalition as either of these:


For the Democrats this is likely to be their New Coalition from 2020/2024-2040 (States I think will go Democratic 5/6 elections)

If Dems go down the path of Kamala Harris type dems this will likely be the map




Democrats get to 234 with this map(I think OR becomes a tossup in the 2028/2032(Depending on when the first gop win after Trump is. WA becomes a tossup but by 2036/2040.)


If they go the populist route this will be new map:





Dems get 209 with that map




Kamala Harris, like 99% of Democrats with any hope of a future with the party, is a populist.  She might be a different type of populist than Bernie Sanders, but she's a populist.
Logged
America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗
TexArkana
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,385
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: January 31, 2018, 01:11:33 PM »

It clear now that neither party will have as dominant coalition as either of these:


For the Democrats this is likely to be their New Coalition from 2020/2024-2040 (States I think will go Democratic 5/6 elections)

If Dems go down the path of Kamala Harris type dems this will likely be the map




Democrats get to 234 with this map(I think OR becomes a tossup in the 2028/2032(Depending on when the first gop win after Trump is. WA becomes a tossup but by 2036/2040.)


If they go the populist route this will be new map:





Dems get 209 with that map




Kamala Harris, like 99% of Democrats with any hope of a future with the party, is a populist.  She might be a different type of populist than Bernie Sanders, but she's a populist.
Why is Virginia not a Democratic state in the first map while Arizona and Georgia are?
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,260


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: January 31, 2018, 02:03:14 PM »

It clear now that neither party will have as dominant coalition as either of these:


For the Democrats this is likely to be their New Coalition from 2020/2024-2040 (States I think will go Democratic 5/6 elections)

If Dems go down the path of Kamala Harris type dems this will likely be the map




Democrats get to 234 with this map(I think OR becomes a tossup in the 2028/2032(Depending on when the first gop win after Trump is. WA becomes a tossup but by 2036/2040.)


If they go the populist route this will be new map:





Dems get 209 with that map




Kamala Harris, like 99% of Democrats with any hope of a future with the party, is a populist.  She might be a different type of populist than Bernie Sanders, but she's a populist.
Why is Virginia not a Democratic state in the first map while Arizona and Georgia are?


LOL that was a mistake
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.069 seconds with 11 queries.