How and when does New England go Republican?

[Senator-elect Spark]

[Xing]

It would probably take either another realignment with large changes in population, or the Republicans/Democrats drastically changing their platforms for all of New England to go Republican. It's like asking when the South will go Democratic.

[Bigby]

Time machine to the past.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Northern Strategy.  New England will be mostly Republican in the 2030s.

[RINO Tom]

New England is not monolithic, and neither is the South.  I think all of the Southern states voting relatively (not even close to exactly) the same between the '20s and the 2000s had more to do with circumstances ... 1928 saw several Southern sates go Republican while others went Democratic, as did 1952, 1956 and 1960.  Really, I'd say the (entire) South was a battleground region in all of the '50s, '60s, '70s, '80s and even '90s (come on, in 1992 AR, LA, TN, KY, GA, WV voted against MS, AL, FL, SC, NC and VA, right?).  Similarly, New England is not some area where everyone is the same.

Rhode Island and Massachusetts were, for a long time, much more Democratic than NH, VT and ME.  History can throw us some curveballs, and it's not unreasonable that we'll eventually see a map that splits up New England just as much as the Mountain West or Midwest have been in the past.

[Devils30]

We started to see that this year. MA swung D and RI, ME had major swings toward the GOP.

[DPKdebator]

We started to see that this year. MA swung D and RI, ME had major swings toward the GOP.

MA was the only New England state to swing Democratic, likely because most Republican areas around here in the Boston area are "rich Republicans"- the western half of the state swung Trump (including Berkshire County, long the most liberal part of the state besides Boston and Cambridge) because it's all small towns where jobs are few and, unlike 2012, a higher percentage went for Clinton in the eastern part of the state.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

We started to see that this year. MA swung D and RI, ME had major swings toward the GOP.

MA was the only New England state to swing Democratic, likely because most Republican areas around here in the Boston area are "rich Republicans"- the western half of the state swung Trump (including Berkshire County, long the most liberal part of the state besides Boston and Cambridge) because it's all small towns where jobs are few and, unlike 2012, a higher percentage went for Clinton in the eastern part of the state.

Was it also the lack of favoured son Rommers on the ballot?

[RINO Tom]

When a giant Sharknado threatens Appalachia and those people move to New England in droves.

Why would they move to stuffy, cold, high-tax New England when it'd be a much shorter drive down to Georgia or something?  LOL

[Figueira]

It doesn't.

[Ljube]

Northern Strategy.  New England will be mostly Republican in the 2030s.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Well ME-2 voted for Donald Trump, I could see NH, ME, ME-2 voting Trump in 2020 if he is Popular. However the rest of New England is pretty safe Democratic. Also the GOP probably needs to do better with College Educated whites if they hope to flip a state like Connecticut.

[Kingpoleon]

Phil Scott/Condoleeza Rice v. John Bel Edwards/Gwen Graham

VT, NH, and ME vote Republican, as might Connecticut.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Phil Scott/Condoleeza Rice v. John Bel Edwards/Gwen Graham

VT, NH, and ME vote Republican, as might Connecticut.

Northern New England is historically anti-war. Condi would probably not sell well up there.

[Figueira]

Phil Scott/Condoleeza Rice v. John Bel Edwards/Gwen Graham

VT, NH, and ME vote Republican, as might Connecticut.

It doesn't work that way. People don't just randomly end up with the nomination. They have to campaign to win their party's primary, which means giving up any positions that would endear them to the other side.

[DPKdebator]

Here's all the areas based on how likely they are to vote Republican:

1. ME-02
2. NH
3. ME
4. CT
5. RI
6. ME-01
7. VT
8. MA

[kydmb99]

When a giant Sharknado threatens Appalachia and those people move to New England in droves.

Great joke NSW. Real knee slapper.

[elcorazon]

when Trump flames out, but dems react by becoming too populist and anti-trade, trying to coopt some of Trump's appeal. Republicans realign somewhat, dropping some of their Christian right pieces, along with some anti-science stuff. The social issues fade away as major differences between the parties and the libertarianish wing of the republican party makes inroads into the new england vote.

Probably looking at around 2024 to have much impact. May not see many states swing until 2028. (although NH, ME, CT and RI could swing sooner)

[Figueira]

Here's all the areas based on how likely they are to vote Republican:

1. ME-02
2. NH
3. ME
4. CT
5. RI
6. ME-01
7. VT
8. MA

This is about right. The first four are the only ones I can really see going Republican in the current era, though, and CT is a stretch.

[BillyW]

Don't know when. From far away Texas, NE looks pretty foreboding. I do find it interesting that GOP can win governorships there but presidential elections not so much

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What is with this idea that some people have that New England--as a whole--is lousy with affluent "socially liberal but fiscally conservative " Cuomocrats?

[Smash255]

Don't know when. From far away Texas, NE looks pretty foreboding. I do find it interesting that GOP can win governorships there but presidential elections not so much

With the exception of Maine (which had a liberal 3rd party candidate), GOP candidates for Gov who run and win are considerably less conservative than any Republican who can win a Presidential nomination.

[The_Doctor]

When the Republican Party becomes an urban conservative party able to espouse technocratic-conservative ideas that have an appeal in urban areas and liberal areas. In other words, when New England becomes competitive, the GOP will probably have shifted to resuming being a center-right technocratic Northern party without notable evangelical support (which, to be blunt, will have died out).

Trump, of all things, is a forerunner of this GOP. He's from New York, he's a moderate, and if he had spent serious time creating a coherent ideology that reflected this GOP we would have seen hints of it. I do think the fact that the GOP nominated a Massachusetter and New Yorker suggests the GOP is open to moving towards this direction, especially if Texas and the Sunbelt and parts of the South like Georgia and North Carolina move to the Democrats.

[RFayette]

When the Republican Party becomes an urban conservative party able to espouse technocratic-conservative ideas that have an appeal in urban areas and liberal areas. In other words, when New England becomes competitive, the GOP will probably have shifted to resuming being a center-right technocratic Northern party without notable evangelical support (which, to be blunt, will have died out).

Nice try bud.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2015/may/pew-evangelicals-stay-strong-us-religious-landscape-study.html

[RINO Tom]

What is with this idea that some people have that New England--as a whole--is lousy with affluent "socially liberal but fiscally conservative " Cuomocrats?

I would assume, as is usually the case, perception takes a while to catch up with reality, and people prefer to think of states as being static across decades (while thinking the same of political parties would be labeled insane).  In other words, people look at the Republicans who were successful across New England in the '40s, '50s, '60s, etc., label them (rightly or wrongly, lean rightly) "socially liberal (for a Republican) and fiscally conservative," see the region trend away from Republicans as the South trends toward Republicans and draw the lazy conclusion that the region was, is and always will be "socially liberal and fiscally conservative," so it must have just been New Englanders souring on the increasingly socially conservative and Southernized GOP.

This is, of course, ridiculous, as it assumes the following, all of which I would contend are false:

1) The states of New England that have "switched" (e.g., Vermont) have remained the same demographically, culturally and politically and only switched which party they expressed their static ideologies under.
2) A changing national GOP prohibited local Republicans from ... well ... remaining exactly the same.
3) Liberal, populist New England Democrats - with largely working class coalitions - didn't simply finally win over New England through a combination of "WASPy" types moving to other areas of the country, urban areas (that had always been Democratic) finally being able to outvote the rest of their states and a new generation of New Englanders being SIGNIFICANTLY more liberal than their parents.

A comparatively small segment of affluent New Englanders who finally became Democratic-leaners are simply icing on the cake and not even close to an explanation for the shift, but that story is a lot easier to tell and - quite frankly - a more comforting tale to tons of people on this site across the political spectrum, if they are to believe whatever noble story they've concocted about their ideologies.