Will the South ever go Democratic & the North Republican again?

[Senator-elect Spark]

[Clark Kent]

Yes, but probably not for a while.

[ElectionsGuy]

Where do we define 'north and 'south'? How do western states fit into this picture? I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary Clinton could get close (my definition doesn't include DC, MD, or DE). The northeast will probably never vote Republican again, but that's not necessarily 'the north'.

[nicholas.slaydon]

Unless there is some form of massive political realignment it will never happen. The South will never vote Democratic unless the Democrats run a very socially conservative and religious candidate. And New England will never vote Republican unless they become much more socially liberal. So barring all but a total flip in party ideologies, I don't see this happening in my lifetime.

[evergreenarbor]

The parties would have to switch their views on social issues, which doesn't seem likely at this point.

[RINO Tom]

The parties would have to switch their views on social issues, which doesn't seem likely at this point

Way more complicated than that.  The Northeast is far more diverse, far less WASPy and far less economically conservative than it was when the GOP had strength there.  Additionally, the South is far less agrarian and doesn't appreciate economic populism the way it did when Democrats could win there.  In addition to the parties changing with time, these quite literally are completely different regions than they once were.

However, anyone saying "never" needs to take a history class.  The South will vote Democrat again, and the Northeast will vote Republican again.  Period.  It won't be anytime soon barring some unforeseen event.

[Kingpoleon]

Where do we define 'north and 'south'? How do western states fit into this picture? I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary Clinton could get close (my definition doesn't include DC, MD, or DE). The northeast will probably never vote Republican again, but that's not necessarily 'the north'.

203: South
190: North

Interestingly, Maryland and Delaware make up 13 electoral votes. While D. C. is clearly culturally northern, Maryland and Delaware have a mix of culture. Not counting them it's an even 190-190 split.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Interestingly, Maryland and Delaware make up 13 electoral votes. While D. C. is clearly culturally northern, Maryland and Delaware have a mix of culture. Not counting them it's an even 190-190 split.

Maryland is predominantly Baltimore, Baltimore suburbs, and DC suburbs.  The remainder of the state is Appalachian, dairy farms, a bit of Amish country, military establishment, and coastal tourism.  The only part of Maryland that is truly "Southern" consists of the tidewater and southern rural portions.  And since they quit producing tobacco when I was a kid, those areas have lost their Southern character as well.  Given county populations, I estimate the state is made up of the following:

BosNyWash: 52%
Northern exurb/rural: 20%
Military: 10%
Southern rural/tidewater: 12%
Appalachia: 5%
Coastal: 1% (not counting tourist population)

All in all, a state I would characterize Maryland as over 80% Northeastern.  Or maybe put another way: 75% Northeast, 25% Virginia.

As for Delaware, about 60% of the population is part of the Philadelphia metro, and the rest is dominated by coastal tourism.  Basically a southern extension of the Jersey Shore.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

To answer the question of whether the South will go Democrat and the North Republican:

One of the big trends happening right now is the leftward swing of the Sunbelt suburbs (and suburbs in general).  Southern, affluent, white suburbia was the "New South," which was as big, or a bigger reason for the South's move to the GOP as was the backlash to the Civil Rights Movement.  Matthew Lassiter examines this in his most excellent book, The Silent Majority: Suburban Politics in the Sunbelt South.

Trump and Sanders both demonstrate a significant backlash against the economic and social elite that the Democrats have come to represent.  Can those elements coalesce into a single party?  This seems unlikely to me, but who knows?

[Xing]

Not unless the parties change their platforms.

[IceSpear]

In the near term? Only in RINO Tom's wet dreams and Santander's nightmares.

I'm sure at some point there will be some type of realignment though. It seems unlikely the same exact coalitions will persist for centuries. The exact circumstances of the realignment and what it would cause is anyone's guess though.

[RINO Tom]

In the near term? Only in RINO Tom's wet dreams and Santander's nightmares.

I'm sure at some point there will be some type of realignment though. It seems unlikely the same exact coalitions will persist for centuries. The exact circumstances of the realignment and what it would cause is anyone's guess though.

I love the South, and I'd welcome their votes.  The Southern Republicans of Reagan's and Clinton's and Bush's terms were just fine.  Were they too socially conservative for my taste?  Oh yeah.  But they embraced the party's economic policies and LARGELY respectful of at least keeping their more offensive/intolerant views under the rug on the national stage.  The post-2008 infusion I've not been a fan of, as those folks were Democrats previously whose main issue with the party seemed to be it was TOO tolerant.  I'm not going to welcome racists and xenophobes, especially if they want to fundamentally change the party's economic message and cost us much more reliable voters in the suburbs and battleground states, as bad as that sounds.

[RINO Tom]

I could easily see the Democrats winning VA, NC, SC, LA, GA, MS and FL in a competitive race in 20 years, while the Republicans (who become more populist) win WI, MI, ME, CT, PA, IL and MN.

We'll see.

[IceSpear]

I love the South

And Willard Mitt Romney is a severe conservative who hunts small varmints.

You might personally not want the racists and xenophobes, but unfortunately for you, it looks like your party's leadership will do just about anything for votes at this point, which includes giving those voters a big bear hug. And thanks for calling the Democratic Party too tolerant, we really appreciate the compliment! People who think that certainly won't be coming back any time soon.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think we are slowly heading in that direction.

[IceSpear]

I think we are slowly heading in that direction.

There's plenty of signs for the former (VA going from solid R in 2004 to solid D in 2016, NC going from solid R in 2004 to a swing state in the last few elections, GA and even TX/SC apparently narrowing significantly) but very little signs for the latter. Back when Trump wasn't getting obliterated he was polling close in PA, but so was Romney at certain points. He hasn't been doing particularly well in MI, WI, or NH. There are a few signs in ME and IA, but that's it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think we are slowly heading in that direction.

There's plenty of signs for the former (VA going from solid R in 2004 to solid D in 2016, NC going from solid R in 2004 to a swing state in the last few elections, GA and even TX/SC apparently narrowing significantly) but very little signs for the latter. Back when Trump wasn't getting obliterated he was polling close in PA, but so was Romney at certain points. He hasn't been doing particularly well in MI, WI, or NH. There are a few signs in ME and IA, but that's it.

The Republicans have to make a choice. States will not just fall into their laps, they will have to seek and obtain them through active effort. If they want to continue to pretend it is 1980 and keep offering an Orange County platform that is increasingly going to yield diminishing returns in the sunbelt or embrace a certain amount of economic moderation in exchange for working class voters in the Midwest. Until they do that, they will not gain much, but they will certainly keep losing their present terrain regardless.

[RINO Tom]

I think we are slowly heading in that direction.

There's plenty of signs for the former (VA going from solid R in 2004 to solid D in 2016, NC going from solid R in 2004 to a swing state in the last few elections, GA and even TX/SC apparently narrowing significantly) but very little signs for the latter. Back when Trump wasn't getting obliterated he was polling close in PA, but so was Romney at certain points. He hasn't been doing particularly well in MI, WI, or NH. There are a few signs in ME and IA, but that's it.

The Republicans have to make a choice. States will not just fall into their laps, they will have to seek and obtain them through active effort. If they want to continue to pretend it is 1980 and keep offering an Orange County platform that is increasingly going to yield diminishing returns in the sunbelt or embrace a certain amount of economic moderation in exchange for working class voters in the Midwest. Until they do that, they will not gain much, but they will certainly keep losing their present terrain regardless.

It's not an either or.  Both a 1980s platform AND an economically "populist" platform is the wrong approach.  Kind of funny that many of the people living the anti-trade Trumpist direction were the ones warning against social moderation in the past, saying being "Democrat lite" won't win elections.  What do you call copying their economic ideals (yes, protectionism is still mostly owned by the Democrats in practice at this point in time; the fiercest anti-traders remain unions and the Bernie crowd and the fiercest free traders are Republicans)?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

A more populist GOP isn't necessarily a bad thing for the party (especially when you consider the long-term electoral prospects), but you need a Republican who can appeal to Northern Whites AND minorities.

The main problem with GOP populism is that it's easily outflanked but Democratic populism.  The GOP "populist" line against the Democrats is that they represent a social and technocratic elite who want Americans to lose.  The only people that message really resonates with are white.

Meanwhile, the Democrats easily capture the populist mantle by claiming GOP policies favor the rich, favor men, and favor whites.  This strategy doesn't do much for a large portion of white men, but demographic trends are making it easy to win elections with less than 40% of the white male vote.

[Figueira]

What is "the North"?

[RINO Tom]

I think we are slowly heading in that direction.

There's plenty of signs for the former (VA going from solid R in 2004 to solid D in 2016, NC going from solid R in 2004 to a swing state in the last few elections, GA and even TX/SC apparently narrowing significantly) but very little signs for the latter. Back when Trump wasn't getting obliterated he was polling close in PA, but so was Romney at certain points. He hasn't been doing particularly well in MI, WI, or NH. There are a few signs in ME and IA, but that's it.

The Republicans have to make a choice. States will not just fall into their laps, they will have to seek and obtain them through active effort. If they want to continue to pretend it is 1980 and keep offering an Orange County platform that is increasingly going to yield diminishing returns in the sunbelt or embrace a certain amount of economic moderation in exchange for working class voters in the Midwest. Until they do that, they will not gain much, but they will certainly keep losing their present terrain regardless.

It's not an either or.  Both a 1980s platform AND an economically "populist" platform is the wrong approach.  Kind of funny that many of the people living the anti-trade Trumpist direction were the ones warning against social moderation in the past, saying being "Democrat lite" won't win elections.  What do you call copying their economic ideals (yes, protectionism is still mostly owned by the Democrats in practice at this point in time; the fiercest anti-traders remain unions and the Bernie crowd and the fiercest free traders are Republicans)?

There's an ancient free trader strain among Democrats, while they only ever became protectionist for one generation at the very height of mid 20th century Union power.  If Republicans come to broadly advocate for tariffs, strict penalties for currency manipulator so, etc., they are only returning to the position their party held from its founding to WWII.

Being a protectionist in a developing economy is more akin to being a free trader in an economic power than it is to being a protectionist in an economic power.  Motive says a lot more about a party than method.  The arguments 1800s and early 1900s Democrats used to promote free trade are eerily similar to the arguments modern Democrats use to promote protectionism: "Who cares if it benefits American businesses if it hurts American workers."  I've said it before, but there is absolutely no coincidence behind the GOP seemingly flip-flopping on the issue of trade.  Once American business leaders no longer saw a benefit to high tariffs in a post-World War II economy, neither did Republican lawmakers who represented their interests.

[RINO Tom]

I think we are slowly heading in that direction.

There's plenty of signs for the former (VA going from solid R in 2004 to solid D in 2016, NC going from solid R in 2004 to a swing state in the last few elections, GA and even TX/SC apparently narrowing significantly) but very little signs for the latter. Back when Trump wasn't getting obliterated he was polling close in PA, but so was Romney at certain points. He hasn't been doing particularly well in MI, WI, or NH. There are a few signs in ME and IA, but that's it.

I could easily see the Democrats winning VA, NC, SC, LA, GA, MS and FL in a competitive race in 20 years, while the Republicans (who become more populist) win WI, MI, ME, CT, PA, IL and MN.

We'll see.

Ha!

...?

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

This will happen with the Northern Strategy.

[AltRightGangsta]

Maybe, but the sh**t that would need to happen for this to happen would probably result in civil war.

[Sumner 1868]

...no. Just look at the GOP numbers in Alabama this year.