Vermont could become a swing state.

[Cashew]

This is assuming the Democrats abandon rural whites, and republicans become more socially liberal.

Again it depends entirely on the democratic establishment maintaining control, and a successful trump presidency, but It would not be shocking a few cycles from now.

[Lachi]

This is assuming the Democrats abandon rural whites, and republicans become more socially liberal.

Again it depends entirely on the democratic establishment maintaining control, and a successful trump presidency, but It would not be shocking a few cycles from now.

lolwut?

[RINO Tom]

I wouldn't be totally shocked if this happens circa 2036, but Democrats really need to reconsider their strategy if New England keeps drifting away.  They could be shut of the senate for a generation.

FTFY.   SOME (can't stress enough that this is a minority) in the Democratic Party have made the comically stupid mistake of doing something that hasn't been done on a major scale since the death of the Whigs, IMO, and that is trying to pick its voters based on how "worthy" they are.  It's asinine.  Liberals of each and every decade have welcomed any and all who felt their voice wasn't heard; that's the point of liberalism.  I disagree with the philosophy, in that I doubt its eventual effectiveness, but that's why I'm not a liberal.  Nevertheless, I find it reassuring for American politics as a whole that even on a message board full of upper-middle class, White political nerds, the vast majority of red avatars want to return to the roots of the party.

As for Vermont, come on board!   It'd be great to have the historic bedrock of party support back on the team!  Though, the VT that voted Republican is a much preferable state politically than this current manifestation that has little or no resemblance demographically, economically or politically to the VT that rejected FDR.

[Figueira]

Rural whites in Vermont are not the same as rural whites elsewhere. It could become a lot closer but the ex-New Yorkers/Bostonians and their children will keep it in the Democratic fold. But I agree that Democrats have a major rural wite problem and need to fix it so Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Montana (in non-presidential elections), Iowa, and Wisconsin don't become Safe R forever.

[MT Treasurer]

As for Vermont, come on board!  It'd be great to have the historic bedrock of party support back on the team!  Though, the VT that voted Republican is a much preferable state politically than this current manifestation that has little or no resemblance demographically, economically or politically to the VT that rejected FDR.

You might get Maine, though (if current trends keep up)! That should be good enough (at least IMO) and they also rejected FDR.

[Figueira]

As for Vermont, come on board!  It'd be great to have the historic bedrock of party support back on the team!  Though, the VT that voted Republican is a much preferable state politically than this current manifestation that has little or no resemblance demographically, economically or politically to the VT that rejected FDR.

You might get Maine, though (if current trends keep up)! That should be good enough (at least IMO) and they also rejected FDR.

Republicans will get Maine (except the first district) if Democrats become a latre liberals plus minorities party.

Actually even Connecticut could come close to flipping in that scenario; contrary to popular belief the state is more than just Fairfield County.

[RINO Tom]

As for Vermont, come on board!  It'd be great to have the historic bedrock of party support back on the team!  Though, the VT that voted Republican is a much preferable state politically than this current manifestation that has little or no resemblance demographically, economically or politically to the VT that rejected FDR.

You might get Maine, though (if current trends keep up)! That should be good enough (at least IMO) and they also rejected FDR.

Republicans will get Maine (except the first district) if Democrats become a latre liberals plus minorities party.

Actually even Connecticut could come close to flipping in that scenario; contrary to popular belief the state is more than just Fairfield County.

Uh, if Democrats literally become an ONLY "Latte Liberal" + minorities party, they'd lose like 40 states.

[Figueira]

As for Vermont, come on board!  It'd be great to have the historic bedrock of party support back on the team!  Though, the VT that voted Republican is a much preferable state politically than this current manifestation that has little or no resemblance demographically, economically or politically to the VT that rejected FDR.

You might get Maine, though (if current trends keep up)! That should be good enough (at least IMO) and they also rejected FDR.

Republicans will get Maine (except the first district) if Democrats become a latre liberals plus minorities party.

Actually even Connecticut could come close to flipping in that scenario; contrary to popular belief the state is more than just Fairfield County.

Uh, if Democrats literally become an ONLY "Latte Liberal" + minorities party, they'd lose like 40 states.

Yes, and one of those states would be Maine.

[RINO Tom]

As for Vermont, come on board!  It'd be great to have the historic bedrock of party support back on the team!  Though, the VT that voted Republican is a much preferable state politically than this current manifestation that has little or no resemblance demographically, economically or politically to the VT that rejected FDR.

You might get Maine, though (if current trends keep up)! That should be good enough (at least IMO) and they also rejected FDR.

Republicans will get Maine (except the first district) if Democrats become a latre liberals plus minorities party.

Actually even Connecticut could come close to flipping in that scenario; contrary to popular belief the state is more than just Fairfield County.

Uh, if Democrats literally become an ONLY "Latte Liberal" + minorities party, they'd lose like 40 states.

Yes, and one of those states would be Maine.

Agreed, I'm just saying they will NEVER become a latte liberal and minority-only party.  Ever.  They're not that dumb, and the leadership - while pretty inept - is a lot more savvy than some of the hacks on this forum who just want a party that can make them feel superior to other people.

[Figueira]

As for Vermont, come on board!  It'd be great to have the historic bedrock of party support back on the team!  Though, the VT that voted Republican is a much preferable state politically than this current manifestation that has little or no resemblance demographically, economically or politically to the VT that rejected FDR.

You might get Maine, though (if current trends keep up)! That should be good enough (at least IMO) and they also rejected FDR.

Republicans will get Maine (except the first district) if Democrats become a latre liberals plus minorities party.

Actually even Connecticut could come close to flipping in that scenario; contrary to popular belief the state is more than just Fairfield County.

Uh, if Democrats literally become an ONLY "Latte Liberal" + minorities party, they'd lose like 40 states.

Yes, and one of those states would be Maine.

Agreed, I'm just saying they will NEVER become a latte liberal and minority-only party.  Ever.  They're not that dumb, and the leadership - while pretty inept - is a lot more savvy than some of the hacks on this forum who just want a party that can make them feel superior to other people.

You're right, but if Democrats keep gaining among rich white people while losing working class white people, that's a disadvantage in states like Maine.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As for Vermont, come on board!   It'd be great to have the historic bedrock of party support back on the team!  Though, the VT that voted Republican is a much preferable state politically than this current manifestation that has little or no resemblance demographically, economically or politically to the VT that rejected FDR.

You might get Maine, though (if current trends keep up)! That should be good enough (at least IMO) and they also rejected FDR.

As Maine Goes...

[Person Man]

I wouldn't be totally shocked if this happens circa 2036, but Democrats really need to reconsider their strategy if New England keeps drifting away.  They could be shut of the senate for a generation.

FTFY.   SOME (can't stress enough that this is a minority) in the Democratic Party have made the comically stupid mistake of doing something that hasn't been done on a major scale since the death of the Whigs, IMO, and that is trying to pick its voters based on how "worthy" they are.  It's asinine.  Liberals of each and every decade have welcomed any and all who felt their voice wasn't heard; that's the point of liberalism.  I disagree with the philosophy, in that I doubt its eventual effectiveness, but that's why I'm not a liberal.  Nevertheless, I find it reassuring for American politics as a whole that even on a message board full of upper-middle class, White political nerds, the vast majority of red avatars want to return to the roots of the party.

As for Vermont, come on board!   It'd be great to have the historic bedrock of party support back on the team!  Though, the VT that voted Republican is a much preferable state politically than this current manifestation that has little or no resemblance demographically, economically or politically to the VT that rejected FDR.

Well, if Roe/Casey gets overturned under Trump, they will also get the Mormons and about 1/3rd of Evangelicals.  The other viable path for Democrats is minorities + white postgrads + post-Trump religious left.  I think the 85/15 R voting patterns among Southern/Mormon whites are inherently less stable than the 65/35 R voting among Midwestern whites.  Take abortion out of the picture and the former fall back to 65/35 R almost immediately, which would be sufficient to flip about 6 Southern states.  It would basically be the Lincoln coalition, but what they are missing right now is the non-materialist message.

Yeah but wouldn't northern GOP be free to be pro-choice then? I guess this would work if Democrats unite the party under a more moderate post-Roe abortion position like the one I discussed in my fetal position poll.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This is assuming the Democrats abandon rural whites, and republicans become more socially liberal.

Again it depends entirely on the democratic establishment maintaining control, and a successful trump presidency, but It would not be shocking a few cycles from now.

Democrats are definitely telling rural whites to go f**k themselves, but the Republicans aren't becoming more socially liberal.

[Sumner 1868]

Anyone remember when bobloblaw in one of his anti-BLM rants claimed American politics would be like South Africa in the 2040s?

[Xing]

Nah, I'm not even convinced that Maine was anything more than an anomaly this year. Once again, people are making the mistake of assuming that a swing in a single election year is indicative of a long-term trend. Remind me how Montana and the Dakotas are swing states now, and Indiana is a Lean D state.

[MT Treasurer]

Nah, I'm not even convinced that Maine was anything more than an anomaly this year. Once again, people are making the mistake of assuming that a swing in a single election year is indicative of a long-term trend. Remind me how Montana and the Dakotas are swing states now, and Indiana is a Lean D state.

Democrats are always skeptical when a Democratic state trends Republican, but when a state like VA or CO goes Democratic by 4 or 5 points it's the new Vermont. I see nothing wrong with calling WI, ME and PA swing states, even though people on this forum still think these states are likely or safe D in 2020 and fool's gold for Republicans.

Before the election, Democrats were dismissing the IA polls as wrong and claiming that WI, PA, MI, etc. were all safe D. Look how that turned out. If I were you, I wouldn't repeat that same mistake again.

[Xing]

Nah, I'm not even convinced that Maine was anything more than an anomaly this year. Once again, people are making the mistake of assuming that a swing in a single election year is indicative of a long-term trend. Remind me how Montana and the Dakotas are swing states now, and Indiana is a Lean D state.

Democrats are always skeptical when a Democratic state trends Republican, but when a state like VA or CO goes Democratic by 4 or 5 points it's the new Vermont. I see nothing wrong with calling WI, ME and PA swing states, even though people on this forum still think these states are likely or safe D in 2020 and fool's gold for Republicans.

I'm not skeptical of IA, OH, PA, MO, AR, LA, KY, TN, and WV trending Republican. Maine swung hard right this year, but there was no evidence of it doing so beforehand. In fact, it trended heavily Democratic from 2000-2012. Colorado has trended sharply Democratic from 2000-2016, with 2008-2012 being the one time when it didn't trend D. Virginia has trended D in every election cycle of the 2000s so far. All I'm saying is that one election isn't enough to make a conclusion. I wouldn't have concluded Colorado and Virginia were trending Democratic after 2004 alone. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania? Yeah, they're swing states. Maine? Could be like Montana in 2008. We'll see.

[Figueira]

Nah, I'm not even convinced that Maine was anything more than an anomaly this year. Once again, people are making the mistake of assuming that a swing in a single election year is indicative of a long-term trend. Remind me how Montana and the Dakotas are swing states now, and Indiana is a Lean D state.

Democrats are always skeptical when a Democratic state trends Republican, but when a state like VA or CO goes Democratic by 4 or 5 points it's the new Vermont. I see nothing wrong with calling WI, ME and PA swing states, even though people on this forum still think these states are likely or safe D in 2020 and fool's gold for Republicans.

I'm not skeptical of IA, OH, PA, MO, AR, LA, KY, TN, and WV trending Republican. Maine swung hard right this year, but there was no evidence of it doing so beforehand. In fact, it trended heavily Democratic from 2000-2012. Colorado has trended sharply Democratic from 2000-2016, with 2008-2012 being the one time when it didn't trend D. Virginia has trended D in every election cycle of the 2000s so far. All I'm saying is that one election isn't enough to make a conclusion. I wouldn't have concluded Colorado and Virginia were trending Democratic after 2004 alone. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania? Yeah, they're swing states. Maine? Could be like Montana in 2008. We'll see.

Maine is the most rural state, and one of the whitest if not the whitest. It also doesn't have nearly as many Birkenstock Belt types as the actual Birkenstock Belt (i.e. Vermont) but at the same time it isn't West Virginia. We really need to fix our white rural problem if we want Maine and New Hampshire to stay on our team in the future, and if we also want to be competitive in Iowa (and Maine's 2nd district for that matter) again. This could actually help across the Midwest in fact, and also Pennsylvania. And it could allow us to win the House. A lot of these rural areas voted for Gore, Kerry, and Obama; we obviously have a way of winning them, but clearly Clinton's campaign failed miserably on that front.

[Xing]

Again, careful about saying "certainly". A lot of people would have said that Montana and Indiana were "certainly" not Republican-leaning states anymore after 2008, and we saw what happened.

I agree with Figueira that the Democratic strategy this year failed big time with rural white voters, but that places like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Maine are absolutely still winnable for Democrats, provided that they do a better job of appealing to voters in those states. Again, that's part of where the uncertainty lies.

[Figueira]

Didn't several polls show Maine very close this year? Was there even one poll that showed Clinton ahead in ME-02? NH was honestly more surprising IMO.

Of course a lot depends on the candidates. Someone like Sanders would almost certainly do significantly better in Maine than Clinton, but Cory Booker? Joe Biden? Kamala Harris? I doubt it. Assuming the election is competitive, I think Maine should be a Tossup or at least close to being a Tossup. The state is certainly not as Democratic anymore as it was in 1996 or 2000.

Barack Obama, on paper, isn't exactly the type of candidate you'd expect to be a good fit for Maine or Iowa either. It's about strategy, outreach, and campaigning style, not about the candidate's biography. I think it's unwise to assume that Booker and Harris would run urban elitist campaigns, and I have no idea what brings you to the conclusion that that Biden would do badly in Maine.

[MT Treasurer]

I just meant that Maine is certainly not as Democratic as it used to be ten or twenty years ago, which I think is pretty obvious. Republicans like Poliquin or LePage wouldn't have been able to win there back then. Even Collins had a lot of trouble winning in 1996 and some trouble in 2002.

[Figueira]

I just meant that Maine is certainly not as Democratic as it used to be ten or twenty years ago, which I think is pretty obvious. Republicans like Poliquin or LePage wouldn't have been able to win there back then. Even Collins had a lot of trouble winning in 1996 and some trouble in 2002.

Collins wasn't entrenched back then. She had no trouble winning in 2008 which was a Democratic year in Maine and nationwide. See also Olympia Snowe, who won very easily in 1994, 2000, and 2006.

And sure, Maine obviously wasn't as Democratic in 2016 as it was previously, but it isn't "obvious" that this is an irreversible trend or a long-term one. It really only dates back to 2014.

[MT Treasurer]

I just meant that Maine is certainly not as Democratic as it used to be ten or twenty years ago, which I think is pretty obvious. Republicans like Poliquin or LePage wouldn't have been able to win there back then. Even Collins had a lot of trouble winning in 1996 and some trouble in 2002.

Collins wasn't entrenched back then. She had no trouble winning in 2008 which was a Democratic year in Maine and nationwide. See also Olympia Snowe, who won very easily in 1994, 2000, and 2006.

And sure, Maine obviously wasn't as Democratic in 2016 as it was previously, but it isn't "obvious" that this is an irreversible trend or a long-term one. It really only dates back to 2014.

Now that is true, but the Iowa (and to a lesser extent, Ohio) trend also only dates back to 2014. No one in 2004 would have thought that VA and NM were going to become solid blue states just two years later, either. Maybe I am just overreacting to these trends, but I think they are interesting nonetheless. Even if Republicans win Maine next time around, a 3-1 EV split would probably not be a game changer, lol.

[Thunderbird is the word]

I wouldn't be totally shocked if this happens circa 2036, but Democrats really need to reconsider their strategy if New England keeps drifting away.  They could be shut of the senate for a generation.

FTFY.   SOME (can't stress enough that this is a minority) in the Democratic Party have made the comically stupid mistake of doing something that hasn't been done on a major scale since the death of the Whigs, IMO, and that is trying to pick its voters based on how "worthy" they are.  It's asinine.  Liberals of each and every decade have welcomed any and all who felt their voice wasn't heard; that's the point of liberalism.  I disagree with the philosophy, in that I doubt its eventual effectiveness, but that's why I'm not a liberal.  Nevertheless, I find it reassuring for American politics as a whole that even on a message board full of upper-middle class, White political nerds, the vast majority of red avatars want to return to the roots of the party.

As for Vermont, come on board!   It'd be great to have the historic bedrock of party support back on the team!  Though, the VT that voted Republican is a much preferable state politically than this current manifestation that has little or no resemblance demographically, economically or politically to the VT that rejected FDR.

You are correct about liberals. It's such an irredeemably stupid strategy. I wish that we could have our party represent us and you could have yours. I want a Democracy where a greater number of people have their views represented in the halls of power and I do think there needs to be a better left and a conservative opposition that's sane and not dominated by white nationalists and theocrats.

[Figueira]

I just meant that Maine is certainly not as Democratic as it used to be ten or twenty years ago, which I think is pretty obvious. Republicans like Poliquin or LePage wouldn't have been able to win there back then. Even Collins had a lot of trouble winning in 1996 and some trouble in 2002.

Collins wasn't entrenched back then. She had no trouble winning in 2008 which was a Democratic year in Maine and nationwide. See also Olympia Snowe, who won very easily in 1994, 2000, and 2006.

And sure, Maine obviously wasn't as Democratic in 2016 as it was previously, but it isn't "obvious" that this is an irreversible trend or a long-term one. It really only dates back to 2014.

Now that is true, but the Iowa (and to a lesser extent, Ohio) trend also only dates back to 2014. No one in 2004 would have thought that VA and NM were going to become solid blue states just two years later, either. Maybe I am just overreacting to these trends, but I think they are interesting nonetheless. Even if Republicans win Maine next time around, a 3-1 EV split would probably not be a game changer, lol.

Yeah, same goes for Iowa and Ohio. I'm not even sure if Ohio started in 2014, but it should be easy to figure out by looking at the House results.