What makes states trend right?

[5280]

Notice how some states (California) trend left and stay like that. What will take a Democratic state trend Republican?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Look at West Virginia or Kentucky over the last 10 or 20 years.  As for where it could next happen, PA, WI, and MN are top contenders in my mind.  ME could become competitive eventually as well.

[YaBoyNY]

Look at West Virginia or Kentucky over the last 10 or 20 years.  As for where it could next happen, PA, WI, and MN are top contenders in my mind.  ME could become competitive eventually as well.

What would make these places trend more right, exactly? None of them are like Kentucky or West Virginia.

[Sir Mohamed]

Currently none while Virginia, Georgia and Arizona trend more toward the Democratic party.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Look at West Virginia or Kentucky over the last 10 or 20 years.  As for where it could next happen, PA, WI, and MN are top contenders in my mind.  ME could become competitive eventually as well.

What would make these places trend more right, exactly? None of them are like Kentucky or West Virginia.

I ing hate these types of responses, because I'm forced this TRUE albeit lame answer: SOMETHING will cause SOMEWHERE to trend right.  You're being naive if you think every state is at least kind of on its way to becoming a blue state the "cooler" it becomes.  Voters will react and react differently by the decade.  Bush 41 won suburbanites by landslides in '88.  Now they're a swing group.  Rural Southerners were a swing group for a few cycles, now they're solidly Republican.

The current EC map won't last forever, and I'll be shocked if it lasts past 2028.  Something big will happen to spark a change.

[5280]

Currently none while Virginia, Georgia and Arizona trend more toward the Democratic party.

Stay on topic, this is about states that COULD trend right, not left.

[YaBoyNY]

Look at West Virginia or Kentucky over the last 10 or 20 years.  As for where it could next happen, PA, WI, and MN are top contenders in my mind.  ME could become competitive eventually as well.

What would make these places trend more right, exactly? None of them are like Kentucky or West Virginia.

I ing hate these types of responses, because I'm forced this TRUE albeit lame answer: SOMETHING will cause SOMEWHERE to trend right.  You're being naive if you think every state is at least kind of on its way to becoming a blue state the "cooler" it becomes.  Voters will react and react differently by the decade.  Bush 41 won suburbanites by landslides in '88.  Now they're a swing group.  Rural Southerners were a swing group for a few cycles, now they're solidly Republican.

The current EC map won't last forever, and I'll be shocked if it lasts past 2028.  Something big will happen to spark a change.

I'm not sure why you're getting so worked up over this. Did I or anybody insinuate that the states will always vote the same way forever? Because I certainly don't recall doing so.

I'm asking him why he thinks PA, MN, or WI, or ME even, are going to trend right. I've yet to hear an argument for -why-. I hear "because white people" as an argument all the time, which is flawed for several reasons, and "Republicans will moderate on social issues" and it just begs the question of why they would do that? They're not locked out of the EC, just disadvantaged, and Republican states are again most likely going to be net EV gainers in 2020 anyway.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Look at West Virginia or Kentucky over the last 10 or 20 years.  As for where it could next happen, PA, WI, and MN are top contenders in my mind.  ME could become competitive eventually as well.

What would make these places trend more right, exactly? None of them are like Kentucky or West Virginia.

I ing hate these types of responses, because I'm forced this TRUE albeit lame answer: SOMETHING will cause SOMEWHERE to trend right.  You're being naive if you think every state is at least kind of on its way to becoming a blue state the "cooler" it becomes.  Voters will react and react differently by the decade.  Bush 41 won suburbanites by landslides in '88.  Now they're a swing group.  Rural Southerners were a swing group for a few cycles, now they're solidly Republican.

The current EC map won't last forever, and I'll be shocked if it lasts past 2028.  Something big will happen to spark a change.

I'm not sure why you're getting so worked up over this. Did I or anybody insinuate that the states will always vote the same way forever? Because I certainly don't recall doing so.

I'm asking him why he thinks PA, MN, or WI, or ME even, are going to trend right. I've yet to hear an argument for -why-. I hear "because white people" as an argument all the time, which is flawed for several reasons, and "Republicans will moderate on social issues" and it just begs the question of why they would do that? They're not locked out of the EC, just disadvantaged, and Republican states are again most likely going to be net EV gainers in 2020 anyway.

First of all, look at Minnesota, a state that was the only state to not vote for Reagan in 1984 (i.e. the bluest in the nation).  Now, it is a bluish-purple state due to certain groups of people (rural whites) becoming much more Republican.  Another group that is starting to do the same is working-class whites, regardless of whether they are from a downtown area or the middle of nowhere, and that could even bring states like Michigan into play.  Demographics and coalitions change all the time, and I while I expect the Deep South to remain solidly Republican for a long time, what states go with it will continue to evolve.

[ElectionsGuy]

Currently none while Virginia, Georgia and Arizona trend more toward the Democratic party.

Not true, Pennsylvania has seen a rightward trend over the past 20 years, as has Minnesota and Iowa (maybe even Wisconsin). Before people flip out, the fact is Pennsylvania and Minnesota used to be much more Democratic than the national average than they are now. They still lean Democratic but much less so than 20 or 30 years ago.

Also, Arizona is not trending Democratic and Georgia is only slightly.

[YaBoyNY]

First of all, look at Minnesota, a state that was the only state to not vote for Reagan in 1984 (i.e. the bluest in the nation).  Now, it is a bluish-purple state due to certain groups of people (rural whites) becoming much more Republican.  Another group that is starting to do the same is working-class whites, regardless of whether they are from a downtown area or the middle of nowhere, and that could even bring states like Michigan into play.  Demographics and coalitions change all the time, and I while I expect the Deep South to remain solidly Republican for a long time, what states go with it will continue to evolve.

Minnesota is a state where Democrats have a high floor and a low ceiling. There's too many urban whites, unionized whites, and loyal DFL voters, plus the now DFL trending suburbs, that offset whatever rural whites may become more Republican. I also don't see any significant trend of working class urban whites becoming more Republican.

You're absolutely right that demographics and coalitions change over time, so why are you assuming that states like Minnesota and Michigan are going to become more Republican based on Democratic losses amongst the white working class? (Which presents a bigger issue in Appalachia and Western Pennsylvania than urban Minnesota and Michigan, but I digress.)

Currently none while Virginia, Georgia and Arizona trend more toward the Democratic party.

Not true, Pennsylvania has seen a rightward trend over the past 20 years, as has Minnesota and Iowa (maybe even Wisconsin). Before people flip out, the fact is Pennsylvania and Minnesota used to be much more Democratic than the national average than they are now. They still lean Democratic but much less so than 20 or 30 years ago.

Also, Arizona is not trending Democratic and Georgia is only slightly.

This is much closer to the truth. Pennsylvania is going to be a Democratic leaning, but close, state, because the continuing leftward trend in the suburbs and eastern Poconos is about dead even with the rightward trend in the west.

[bobloblaw]

Notice how some states (California) trend left and stay like that. What will take a Democratic state trend Republican?

Low immigration, few tech jobs and no large government employment.

This is why GA is moving much more slowly than NC or VA. Ther isnt a large pool of liberal whites in GA. No large federal employment, no tech sector and no mass immigration like NOVA

[DS0816]

Currently none while Virginia, Georgia and Arizona trend more toward the Democratic party.

Not true, Pennsylvania has seen a rightward trend over the past 20 years, as has Minnesota and Iowa (maybe even Wisconsin). Before people flip out, the fact is Pennsylvania and Minnesota used to be much more Democratic than the national average than they are now. They still lean Democratic but much less so than 20 or 30 years ago.

Also, Arizona is not trending Democratic and Georgia is only slightly.

Arizona and Georgia are subject to move away from having their 10-point [est.] Republican advantages in this realigning period, for the Democrats winning the majority of presidential elections, and the voting electorates of Arizona and Georgia going through their changes as well. Texas is also moving in that direction.

Pennsylvania and Minnesota are not moving toward the Republicans. What trips people up into thinking so is that they look at only the margins relative national numbers. But, they still vary them. In one election, they can look like two or three points more Democratic. In another election, they can look five or six points more Democratic.

Taking Pennsylvania as an example with another point: I posted demographic numbers from the 2004, 2008, and 2012 results in Pennsylvania. The Republicans are relying on not just 90 percent but more closer to 95 percent of their popular vote, in the state, coming from white voters. And the white voters in that state are more Democratic than the nation on average.

It would be good to come across some honest posts regarding the direction coming presidential elections are taking. Your assertion is a fantasy of the Republican Party—in their current form—moving the electorate toward them…and, yet, I'm not seeing too many bets being placed on the 2016 presidential hopefuls from that party; how they would be further increase support from whites nationwide (they depend on their nationwide percentages consisting 90 percent of that from whites!); shifting women (whom they haven't carried nationwide since 1988 with George Bush) to embrace their party and ideas; and there are minorities (the Hispanic vote in Pennsylvania, in 2012, was well above the national result).

The Republican Party of today is the essentially the same as the Democratic Party was during the realigning elections under Abraham Lincoln (1860) and William McKinley (1896)—they're confined to trying to win the presidency by a very narrow path that relies on for its base the Old Confederacy. Without a landslide election, to the tune of 80 percent of states (40 of today's 50 states) getting carried, the Republicans aren't going to see Pennsylvania and/or Minnesota shift to them.

[5280]

Will the GOP realign back toward their roots during the Eisenhower and Abraham eras in the near future?

[DS0816]

Will the GOP realign back toward their roots during the Eisenhower and Abraham eras in the near future?

They could only do that if Democrats realign toward where the Republicans are right now.

[bobloblaw]

Currently none while Virginia, Georgia and Arizona trend more toward the Democratic party.

Not true, Pennsylvania has seen a rightward trend over the past 20 years, as has Minnesota and Iowa (maybe even Wisconsin). Before people flip out, the fact is Pennsylvania and Minnesota used to be much more Democratic than the national average than they are now. They still lean Democratic but much less so than 20 or 30 years ago.

Also, Arizona is not trending Democratic and Georgia is only slightly.

Arizona and Georgia are subject to move away from having their 10-point [est.] Republican advantages in this realigning period, for the Democrats winning the majority of presidential elections, and the voting electorates of Arizona and Georgia going through their changes as well. Texas is also moving in that direction.

Pennsylvania and Minnesota are not moving toward the Republicans. What trips people up into thinking so is that they look at only the margins relative national numbers. But, they still vary them. In one election, they can look like two or three points more Democratic. In another election, they can look five or six points more Democratic.

Taking Pennsylvania as an example with another point: I posted demographic numbers from the 2004, 2008, and 2012 results in Pennsylvania. The Republicans are relying on not just 90 percent but more closer to 95 percent of their popular vote, in the state, coming from white voters. And the white voters in that state are more Democratic than the nation on average.

It would be good to come across some honest posts regarding the direction coming presidential elections are taking. Your assertion is a fantasy of the Republican Party—in their current form—moving the electorate toward them…and, yet, I'm not seeing too many bets being placed on the 2016 presidential hopefuls from that party; how they would be further increase support from whites nationwide (they depend on their nationwide percentages consisting 90 percent of that from whites!); shifting women (whom they haven't carried nationwide since 1988 with George Bush) to embrace their party and ideas; and there are minorities (the Hispanic vote in Pennsylvania, in 2012, was well above the national result).

The Republican Party of today is the essentially the same as the Democratic Party was during the realigning elections under Abraham Lincoln (1860) and William McKinley (1896)—they're confined to trying to win the presidency by a very narrow path that relies on for its base the Old Confederacy. Without a landslide election, to the tune of 80 percent of states (40 of today's 50 states) getting carried, the Republicans aren't going to see Pennsylvania and/or Minnesota shift to them.

Texas isnt moving towards the Dems.

In 2004 TX was R+10.5
In 2012 TX was R+10

Take into account any Favorite Son Effect in 2004 and TX hasnt changed at all.

[ElectionsGuy]

Currently none while Virginia, Georgia and Arizona trend more toward the Democratic party.

Not true, Pennsylvania has seen a rightward trend over the past 20 years, as has Minnesota and Iowa (maybe even Wisconsin). Before people flip out, the fact is Pennsylvania and Minnesota used to be much more Democratic than the national average than they are now. They still lean Democratic but much less so than 20 or 30 years ago.

Also, Arizona is not trending Democratic and Georgia is only slightly.

Arizona and Georgia are subject to move away from having their 10-point [est.] Republican advantages in this realigning period, for the Democrats winning the majority of presidential elections, and the voting electorates of Arizona and Georgia going through their changes as well. Texas is also moving in that direction.

Pennsylvania and Minnesota are not moving toward the Republicans. What trips people up into thinking so is that they look at only the margins relative national numbers. But, they still vary them. In one election, they can look like two or three points more Democratic. In another election, they can look five or six points more Democratic.

Taking Pennsylvania as an example with another point: I posted demographic numbers from the 2004, 2008, and 2012 results in Pennsylvania. The Republicans are relying on not just 90 percent but more closer to 95 percent of their popular vote, in the state, coming from white voters. And the white voters in that state are more Democratic than the nation on average.

It would be good to come across some honest posts regarding the direction coming presidential elections are taking. Your assertion is a fantasy of the Republican Party—in their current form—moving the electorate toward them…and, yet, I'm not seeing too many bets being placed on the 2016 presidential hopefuls from that party; how they would be further increase support from whites nationwide (they depend on their nationwide percentages consisting 90 percent of that from whites!); shifting women (whom they haven't carried nationwide since 1988 with George Bush) to embrace their party and ideas; and there are minorities (the Hispanic vote in Pennsylvania, in 2012, was well above the national result).

The Republican Party of today is the essentially the same as the Democratic Party was during the realigning elections under Abraham Lincoln (1860) and William McKinley (1896)—they're confined to trying to win the presidency by a very narrow path that relies on for its base the Old Confederacy. Without a landslide election, to the tune of 80 percent of states (40 of today's 50 states) getting carried, the Republicans aren't going to see Pennsylvania and/or Minnesota shift to them.

I don't think the electorate is moving towards the Republican party. We are talking about state trends here, not the nation as a whole. I would agree with you in saying that Republicans are in a tough spot in presidential elect-ability.

What is completely contradictory is that people such as yourself will absolutely refuse to acknowledge that any Republican trends are taking place in any blue states, yet they point out Republican states that will soon become swing states because "muh demographics" or whatever. The narrative is that the Obama states are all solid for the Democrats or are becoming more Democratic, and the bigger Republican states, like North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona,  and Texas (which isn't trending Democratic by the way) will surely come the Democrats way and are trending that way.

Democrats winning national elections more doesn't mean sh**t when it comes to specific state trends. For example, the American West certainly trended Republican during the FDR/Truman years, and the West Coast trended Democratic during the Reagan/Bush years.

Most of the Republicans trends happening right now are from states that are already Republican, but there are long term trends, such as California moving leftward from the 1970's to now. Minnesota, for example, is definitely in that category. From being the only state to vote against Reagan both times, to the state that is only slightly left of the national popular vote, it has gone a long way in a long time. If you don't see this, you might be in denial.

The demographics argument still has yet to see little impact. Minorities voted overwhelmingly Obama in 2012, yet states like Texas, Georgia, and Arizona had barely budged from their past voting. Arizona actually is more Republican now, considering Clinton narrowly carried it in a year with a similar margin of 2008.

[DS0816]

What is completely contradictory is that people such as yourself will absolutely refuse to acknowledge that any Republican trends are taking place in any blue states, yet they point out Republican states that will soon become swing states because "muh demographics" or whatever. The narrative is that the Obama states are all solid for the Democrats or are becoming more Democratic, and the bigger Republican states, like North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona,  and Texas (which isn't trending Democratic by the way) will surely come the Democrats way and are trending that way.

Less whites will continue helping those "Republican" states move away from Republican and become winnable for Democrats in this realigning period favoring the Democrats.

If you're thinking Blue Firewall states are going to go Republican…that's not going to happen with the current Republican Party as people identify what they represent. There's good reason why, long term, states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Minnesota have not voted the same as states like Arkansas, Louisiana, and South Carolina in presidential elections in which 60 percent or less of participating states carry (while about 40 percent do not).

It's not denial.

It's historical fact.

The Republicans will have to find themselves a Grover Cleveland, a Woodrow Wilson, a Dwight Eisenhower, a Jimmy Carter/Bill Clinton—meaning, an electable candidate who can win over the electorate nationally quite convincingly, and even manage to win on the turf of their opposition party's base of support.

If that's not clear—Grover Cleveland was the only winning Democrat during the Republican realigning period of 1860 to 1892; Woodrow Wilson was the only winning Democrat during the Republican realigning period of 1896 to 1928; Dwight Eisenhower was the only winning Republican during the Democratic realigning period of 1932 to 1964; Jimmy Carter (one term) and Bill Clinton (two terms) were the only winning Democrats (three of ten cycles) during the Republican realigning period of 1968 to 2004. Nearly all of them have this in common: They hailed from states which were among the dominant party's base of support: Cleveland, from New York; Wilson, from New Jersey; Eisenhower, from New York (1952) and Pennsylvania (1956); Carter, from Georgia, and that was in a transitional period (a 1972 Richard Nixon became the first Republican to carry all Old Confederacy states with margins above his national number), and Clinton, after the Republican wins of the 1980s (a 1988 George Bush became the first winning Republican for the party to routinely carry the Old Confederacy states above his national margin; a 1980/1984 Ronald Reagan did not do that), was the beginning of a counter-realigning of the map. Plus, there's the fact that, since the Republicans first competed in 1860, about 55/56 percent of the 34 elections (the most recent with 2012) saw the party with its base in the "North" (meaning, not the Old Confederacy; meaning, not the "South") prevail. So, that's another strike against the current Republican Party. There's also the demographic they can't help—the decline of whites (who they depend on nationally for 90 percent, estimate, of whatever percentage they receive in the U.S. Popular Vote—and that 90 percent is skewed to whites from the Old Confederacy states). And, of course, Gallup recently revealed a poll showing the electorate is becoming more liberal—yet a terrible slam against the Republicans who, of course, now get to look forward to more guidance not only from Mike Huckabee but from Rick Santorum for where that party should go.

No denial on my part.

[5280]

How long will this alignment last with democratic 'majorities' 2038? 2044? Im sure fatigue will set in after long stretches of one party control, unless you want the US to resemble a country like China or Vietnam.

[DS0816]

How long will this alignment last with democratic 'majorities' 2038? 2044? Im sure fatigue will set in after long stretches of one party control, unless you want the US to resemble a country like China or Vietnam.

The majority of them have lasted approximately nine election cycles.


1800 to 1828: Democratic-Republican (won all 7 of these cycles)

1832 to 1856: Democratic (won 6 of 8 cycles)

1860 to 1892: Republican (won 7 of 9 cycles)

1896 to 1928: Republican (won 7 of 9 cycles)

1932 to 1964: Democratic (won 7 of 9 cycles)

1968 to 2004: Republican (won 7 of 10 cycles)


In each of the past cases, the majority party won elections over the minority party at least with 70 percent of the cycles. Average between the 1800 to 2004: 41 divided by 52 = 78.84 percent. The other guide, looking at realignments that went 7-for-9 for the majority party, accounts for 77.77 percent.

[5280]

How long will this alignment last with democratic 'majorities' 2038? 2044? Im sure fatigue will set in after long stretches of one party control, unless you want the US to resemble a country like China or Vietnam.

The majority of them have lasted approximately nine election cycles.


1800 to 1828: Democratic-Republican (won all 7 of these cycles)

1832 to 1856: Democratic (won 6 of 8 cycles)

1860 to 1892: Republican (won 7 of 9 cycles)

1896 to 1928: Republican (won 7 of 9 cycles)

1932 to 1964: Democratic (won 7 of 9 cycles)

1968 to 2004: Republican (won 7 of 10 cycles)


In each of the past cases, the majority party won elections over the minority party at least with 70 percent of the cycles. Average between the 1800 to 2004: 41 divided by 52 = 78.84 percent. The other guide, looking at realignments that went 7-for-9 for the majority party, accounts for 77.77 percent.

So according to the election cycles, around 2032 or 2036, the solid blue states will start trending right or the south will trend towards the democrats.

[DS0816]

How long will this alignment last with democratic 'majorities' 2038? 2044? Im sure fatigue will set in after long stretches of one party control, unless you want the US to resemble a country like China or Vietnam.

The majority of them have lasted approximately nine election cycles.


1800 to 1828: Democratic-Republican (won all 7 of these cycles)

1832 to 1856: Democratic (won 6 of 8 cycles)

1860 to 1892: Republican (won 7 of 9 cycles)

1896 to 1928: Republican (won 7 of 9 cycles)

1932 to 1964: Democratic (won 7 of 9 cycles)

1968 to 2004: Republican (won 7 of 10 cycles)


In each of the past cases, the majority party won elections over the minority party at least with 70 percent of the cycles. Average between the 1800 to 2004: 41 divided by 52 = 78.84 percent. The other guide, looking at realignments that went 7-for-9 for the majority party, accounts for 77.77 percent.

So according to the election cycles, around 2032 or 2036, the solid blue states will start trending right or the south will trend towards the democrats.

Refer to this earlier response I had to a previous question you asked.

Here…

Will the GOP realign back toward their roots during the Eisenhower and Abraham eras in the near future?

They could only do that if Democrats realign toward where the Republicans are right now.

[bballrox4717]

It's not whites voting more Republican, it's a rural-urban divide. Some states were really resistant to this change until the election of Obama, while the states that Obama expanded the map with have been urbanizing and building suburbs close to the city. Pennsylvania is shifting as Philadelphia and Pittsburgh lose population, and I suspect Michigan and Wisconsin will see a similar trend in the future as well.

It's not really an acceptable long term fix though, because pretty much most of the population growth in the US is happening in southern urban cities like Charlotte, Atlanta, Austin, and Houston. I suspect that the future map in 10-20 years looks something like this, in which Democrats can realistically challenge Republicans for the entire South and Republicans can sweep the Midwest:

[YaBoyNY]

New Hampshire and Maine aren't becoming pure tossups, neither is Minnesota. Utah and the South Central US aren't going to slip to lean Republican, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin aren't going to become lean Republican from lean Democrat, Ohio isn't going solid Republican, and South Carolina isn't becoming a tossup.

[Rockefeller GOP]

New Hampshire and Maine aren't becoming pure tossups, neither is Minnesota. Utah and the South Central US aren't going to slip to lean Republican, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin aren't going to become lean Republican from lean Democrat, Ohio isn't going solid Republican, and South Carolina isn't becoming a tossup.

Yeah, nothing will change except for Democrats will continue to improve in previously Republican states while holding their current states rock-solid.

Got it, thanks.

[YaBoyNY]

New Hampshire and Maine aren't becoming pure tossups, neither is Minnesota. Utah and the South Central US aren't going to slip to lean Republican, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin aren't going to become lean Republican from lean Democrat, Ohio isn't going solid Republican, and South Carolina isn't becoming a tossup.

Yeah, nothing will change except for Democrats will continue to improve in previously Republican states while holding their current states rock-solid.

Got it, thanks.

It's so cute when you try to make a rebuttal while ignoring half of the post.

In 10-20 years:

1. Minnesota isn't becoming a tossup. Why would it? Where are Republicans going to improve?
2. Michigan and Wisconsin aren't going to go from lean Democrat to lean Republican. Wisconsin can become less blue and more purple, but lean Republican? Unlikely. And as for Michigan becoming lean Republican? Good luck overpowering Detroit, Flint, their suburbs, and the less conservative rural parts of the state.
3. Pennsylvania, similarly, isn't becoming lean Republican anytime soon. Republicans are eventually going to max out with votes in the declining western half of the state, and what's left then? The Democratic stronghold of Philadelphia (which is growing, by the way), the suburbs, which are purplish blue, places like the Eastern Poconos, Lehigh Valley, and Berks, which are more purplish blue areas, and Pittsburgh itself. In the current alignment, winning over enough votes in the Democratic trending, growing eastern portion of the state is going to be extremely difficult in a 50/50 election.
4. New Hampshire and Maine becoming pure tossups: why? They've been trending Democratic for quite some time, and there's not much the Republican party has to offer them, like eastern PA as mentioned above.
5. Ohio isn't becoming solid Republican either, sorry. Northeastern Ohio and Columbus will continue to counteract Western and Southern Ohio, and its status as a swing state will likely continue.

On the other side:
1. Utah isn't going to slip to lean Republican status from Solid Republican status. That's a really odd pipe dream there.
2. Arizona... Is that -really- going to become a tossup? Sure there's a growing Hispanic vote, but Hispanic voters tend to become more balanced politically the longer they've been in the country, and immigration levels aren't quite what they were a few years ago.
3. Texas becoming lean Republican I can't quite see, for the same reason as above. It's going to continue as solid Republican barring either a landslide or major improvement with conservative rural whites, which isn't happening, or suburban conservatives, which is incredibly unlikely.
4. The South Central US becoming more Democratic? Yeah, I don't see that. For numerous reasons.
5. South Carolina, similarly, is staying solid Republican.
6. Georgia will -probably- continue to be more lean Republican than swingy.