If trump manages to win Iowa, Ohio

[Cashew]

In spite of Clinton winning Arizona, will it still be worth it for democrats to contest those states? Will they even be winnable a decade from now?

[Southern Delegate matthew27]

It'll prove that there's a lot of white males that are deplorable...

As for your question...Well, Florida, North Carolina and probably Az will probably become better states for the democrats in the future...Deplorable uneducated white males will make states like Ohio, Iowa, Maine and Wis in the future more favorable for republicans.

[Senator-elect Spark]

He'll win both. I'm calling it now.
 
OH: Trump +3
IA: Trump +5

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

Ohio is 18 electoral votes (soon to be 17, but still). Of course it's worth fighting for.

Iowa could be different. Of course there's the question of whether or not Trump will even win Iowa at this point, if he does by more than 4 points or so while losing the national PV by ~7 points or so then I think Dems would be wise to let to the way of Missouri and focus on holding the freiwal or investing in states like Arizona and Georgia.

[Lachi]

He'll win both. I'm calling it now.
 
OH: Trump +3
IA: Trump +5

LOL

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

He'll win both. I'm calling it now.
 
OH: Trump +3
IA: Trump +5

LOL

One of the least ridiculous things he's said. Those results are very possible.

[Xing]

It depends on the PV margin. I guess if she's winning AZ, that must imply at least a 5-6% win for her. In that case, Iowa's probably gone, though I'm not sure Democrats would give up on Ohio just yet. If Hillary wins by 8% and still loses Ohio, then they'll probably give up on it, though I'd happily trade Iowa and Ohio for Arizona and North Carolina, and solidifying Nevada, Colorado, and Virginia.

[Hammy]

Trump's going to win Iowa no matter what at this point--this is the same state whose (elected) state supreme court said it's okay for a guy to fire a woman because it's not up to him to be responsible and control his desires.

[President Johnson]

He won't win either. But even if he manages to win them, he still loses the general election handily.

[Young Conservative]

It'll prove that there's a lot of white males that are deplorable...

Not everyone supporting Trump is deplorable. THat's an elitist and just mean thing to say.

[dspNY]

OH: We're never going to concede Ohio before a general election begins, unless the Republican candidate happens to be a popular figure from the state. Cleveland is actually recovering and developing a diversified economy, so population growth could spike there in the next decade after it bottomed out. Columbus is a growing metro which will tilt further Democratic, and its suburbs will turn purple, offsetting much of the rural vote shifting Republican (which is actually decreasing over time as that is the part of the state which will depopulate).

IA: This could be a different story. For some messed up reason, it is voting more like the Dakotas and Wyoming than the typically nice Iowa I remember (no offense to the unfortunate Democrats who are outnumbered in those states and keep up the good fight)!

[TJ in Oregon]

OH: We're never going to concede Ohio before a general election begins, unless the Republican candidate happens to be a popular figure from the state. Cleveland is actually recovering and developing a diversified economy, so population growth could spike there in the next decade after it bottomed out. Columbus is a growing metro which will tilt further Democratic, and its suburbs will turn purple, offsetting much of the rural vote shifting Republican (which is actually decreasing over time as that is the part of the state which will depopulate).

The thing about Ohio is that not all of the rural areas are actually depopulating. Many of the Republican counties in the NW are, and some of the Ohio River counties are, but most of rural Ohio is still growing. The parts of Ohio that are shrinking are the northern metros (yes, including Cleveland), Toledo, Akron, Youngstown, Lorain, etc. The urban cores particularly in these areas are the places in the metros losing the most people. They are also the places that vote the most heavily Democratic.

Now, these effects more or less cancel out the slow Democratic growth in Columbus (indeed it is often people moving from the northern metros to Columbus that are making it bluer to begin with). All of this has led to Ohio not trending anywhere for the past two decades.

What would cause Ohio to trend would be if either urban growth dramatically picked up or if the working class white vote in the northern metro urban cores shifted Republican. There is some evidence to suggest the latter may be happening with Trump this year, which is allowing him to get better numbers than a Generic R would get given the national margin. The question then becomes what the post-Trump Republicans look like. If they can adopt Trump's more populist outlook without his craziness they have a real opening to transform Ohio into a Safe R state in the future.

[voter1993]

they will trend republican this year, but i think for 2020 it will go back to normal arizona will be won comfortably and the republicans will have to fight hard for iowa & ohio.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

As long as Ohio has 15+ electoral votes and isn't consistently polling R+6, it's worth contesting. Iowa less so, but depends on the polls/financial situation. In general, I don't see how one election can cause a state to stop being contestable.

[BuckeyeNut]

OH: We're never going to concede Ohio before a general election begins, unless the Republican candidate happens to be a popular figure from the state. Cleveland is actually recovering and developing a diversified economy, so population growth could spike there in the next decade after it bottomed out. Columbus is a growing metro which will tilt further Democratic, and its suburbs will turn purple, offsetting much of the rural vote shifting Republican (which is actually decreasing over time as that is the part of the state which will depopulate).

The thing about Ohio is that not all of the rural areas are actually depopulating. Many of the Republican counties in the NW are, and some of the Ohio River counties are, but most of rural Ohio is still growing. The parts of Ohio that are shrinking are the northern metros (yes, including Cleveland), Toledo, Akron, Youngstown, Lorain, etc. The urban cores particularly in these areas are the places in the metros losing the most people. They are also the places that vote the most heavily Democratic.

Now, these effects more or less cancel out the slow Democratic growth in Columbus (indeed it is often people moving from the northern metros to Columbus that are making it bluer to begin with). All of this has led to Ohio not trending anywhere for the past two decades.

What would cause Ohio to trend would be if either urban growth dramatically picked up or if the working class white vote in the northern metro urban cores shifted Republican. There is some evidence to suggest the latter may be happening with Trump this year, which is allowing him to get better numbers than a Generic R would get given the national margin. The question then becomes what the post-Trump Republicans look like. If they can adopt Trump's more populist outlook without his craziness they have a real opening to transform Ohio into a Safe R state in the future.

You both make good points. NE OH is on the decline, but a resurgence isn't out of the question. Not all of rural Ohio is shrinking, but there is some pretty serious "suburban brain drain" going on. Columbus, as a city, is solidly blue at this point. It's the Franklin County suburbs that are taking time. But even Upper Arlington (look it up) is beggining to trend to the left. The slow liberal burn is in Cincinnati and it's suburbs. Obama carried Hamilton County in both 2012 and '08, and they're seeing a greater resurgence than Cuyahoga/Lorain/Mahoning. Liberal inroads in Hamilton, and dare I say Butler in the not-so-far-off-future would be quite significant.

Delaware County, though, is the real place to look. They're growth is astounding (+60% from 2000 to '10). If the spread of Democratic voting spreads out from Columbus successfully into Delaware... That'd be amazing. Trump could really jump start that process.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Trump's going to win Iowa no matter what at this point--this is the same state whose (elected) state supreme court said it's okay for a guy to fire a woman because it's not up to him to be responsible and control his desires.

Yes because voters seriously pay attention to judicial elections and are so familiar with all cases they've ruled on when voting.

[hopper]

It'll prove that there's a lot of white males that are deplorable...

As for your question...Well, Florida, North Carolina and probably Az will probably become better states for the democrats in the future...Deplorable uneducated white males will make states like Ohio, Iowa, Maine and Wis in the future more favorable for republicans.

It will be difficult for Maine to be a Safe Republican State because the state is socially liberal like almost the rest of New England(save for NH.) A Republican Presidential Candidate hasn't carried Wisconsin since 1984 when Reagan won the General Election in a landslide although the state was a battleground in both 2000 and 2004 although Bush W. lost the state both times.

I think Trump will lose both Iowa and OH but both states will trend R this year.

[Hammy]

Trump's going to win Iowa no matter what at this point--this is the same state whose (elected) state supreme court said it's okay for a guy to fire a woman because it's not up to him to be responsible and control his desires.

Yes because voters seriously pay attention to judicial elections and are so familiar with all cases they've ruled on when voting.

My point was they elected these people in the first place--and they voted the entire state supreme court out after they approved gay marriage. Iowa has already come home to the deplorables years ago.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Trump's going to win Iowa no matter what at this point--this is the same state whose (elected) state supreme court said it's okay for a guy to fire a woman because it's not up to him to be responsible and control his desires.

Yes because voters seriously pay attention to judicial elections and are so familiar with all cases they've ruled on when voting.

My point was they elected these people in the first place--and they voted the entire state supreme court out after they approved gay marriage. Iowa has already come home to the deplorables years ago.

Like in 2008 and 2012?

[hopper]

Trump's going to win Iowa no matter what at this point--this is the same state whose (elected) state supreme court said it's okay for a guy to fire a woman because it's not up to him to be responsible and control his desires.

Yes because voters seriously pay attention to judicial elections and are so familiar with all cases they've ruled on when voting.

My point was they elected these people in the first place--and they voted the entire state supreme court out after they approved gay marriage. Iowa has already come home to the deplorables years ago.

They did vote for Obama twice and probably Hillary will win the state.

[Hammy]

Trump's going to win Iowa no matter what at this point--this is the same state whose (elected) state supreme court said it's okay for a guy to fire a woman because it's not up to him to be responsible and control his desires.

Yes because voters seriously pay attention to judicial elections and are so familiar with all cases they've ruled on when voting.

My point was they elected these people in the first place--and they voted the entire state supreme court out after they approved gay marriage. Iowa has already come home to the deplorables years ago.

Like in 2008 and 2012?

A lot can change in four years. Trump's nomination alone is a testament to this.