Do Democrats need a Western strategy?

[Figueira]

I feel like this would help a lot if the loss of Midwestern states is locking Democrats out of the Senate.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

That's a better Presidential strategy.  Texas and Arizona are great electoral prizes but in the Senate winning in Texas wouldn't make up for losing in a Midwestern state.

[Figueira]

That's a better Presidential strategy.  Texas and Arizona are great electoral prizes but in the Senate winning in Texas wouldn't make up for losing in a Midwestern state.

I'm not talking about Texas and Arizona. I'm taking about Alaska, Montana, Idaho, and Utah.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

That's a better Presidential strategy.  Texas and Arizona are great electoral prizes but in the Senate winning in Texas wouldn't make up for losing in a Midwestern state.

I'm not talking about Texas and Arizona. I'm taking about Alaska, Montana, Idaho, and Utah.

That would be a bad strategy apart from Alaska.

[Figueira]

They aren't going to win Montana and Idaho any time soon (and probably not Utah either).

Not any time soon, which is why I put it in the trends board. But the Midwest is not going to be Safe R any time soon either. I'm talking about what Democrats should do if/when that happens.

Of course, it's possible that winning back the Midwest is easier than winning those Western states.

[Figueira]

They aren't going to win Montana and Idaho any time soon (and probably not Utah either).

Not any time soon, which is why I put it in the trends board. But the Midwest is not going to be Safe R any time soon either. I'm talking about what Democrats should do if/when that happens.

Of course, it's possible that winning back the Midwest is easier than winning those Western states.

Yes, but I'm not sure what that strategy would look like. I mean, how are they going to win MT and ID? These states aren't suddenly going to become blue or swing states just because Democrats choose to target them.

I remember people saying in 2008 that Montana would become another Colorado or even a "mini California". Look how that turned out.

Probably moderating on guns, for starters.

I don't necessarily endorse this strategy though; I'm just floating it. I would much rather win back the Midwest while improving in the Western states that already vote somewhat Democratic, as well as Mississippi when demographics allow it.

[Goldwater]

That's a better Presidential strategy.  Texas and Arizona are great electoral prizes but in the Senate winning in Texas wouldn't make up for losing in a Midwestern state.

I'm not talking about Texas and Arizona. I'm taking about Alaska, Montana, Idaho, and Utah.

That would be a bad strategy apart from Alaska.

How is focusing your resources on a tiny remote isolated state a good strategy?

[RINO Tom]

Are Native Alaskans reproducing at a crazy rate, or are we all operating under the Atlas assumption that any White person who can read and doesn't watch Duck Dynasty will soon - or at least eventually - become a loyal Democrat?  LOL.

[Figueira]

That's a better Presidential strategy.  Texas and Arizona are great electoral prizes but in the Senate winning in Texas wouldn't make up for losing in a Midwestern state.

I'm not talking about Texas and Arizona. I'm taking about Alaska, Montana, Idaho, and Utah.

That would be a bad strategy apart from Alaska.

How is focusing your resources on a tiny remote isolated state a good strategy?

Every state is equally important in the Senate.

Are Native Alaskans reproducing at a crazy rate, or are we all operating under the Atlas assumption that any White person who can read and doesn't watch Duck Dynasty will soon - or at least eventually - become a loyal Democrat?  LOL.

IIRC there are a lot of Asians moving to Alaska.

[Boston Bread]

I don't think it's worth trying to win over Mormons. They are too culturally disconnected from the rest of the country.

I think it's worth targeting MT and AK in Senate elections and state level. But for presidential elections we should focus on bigger states. If the Dem pres candidate is moderate on guns (which I'd be ok with) and climate change (which I wouldn't be ok with), we could win there, but at that point they would be doing much better in Appalachia and the Midwest and that yields much bigger gains.

[White Trash]

Are demographics becoming more favorable to Democrats in Idaho and Utah? Because I honestly doubt that they will be winning Mormons no matter what.

[Beet]

At the presidential level, no. Alaska, Montana, Idaho, and Utah have what, 20 electoral votes? Don't get me wrong we should compete in every state, but not thinking about the Electoral College is what cost us the last election.

At the Congressional level, absolutely.

[Figueira]

At the presidential level, no. Alaska, Montana, Idaho, and Utah have what, 20 electoral votes? Don't get me wrong we should compete in every state, but not thinking about the Electoral College is what cost us the last election.

At the Congressional level, absolutely.

People seem to be increasingly unwilling to vote for two different parties for different offices.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Are demographics becoming more favorable to Democrats in Idaho and Utah? Because I honestly doubt that they will be winning Mormons no matter what.

Idaho is only one quarter Mormon. Still difficult considering mormons disproportionate involvement in politics, but not as bad as Utah. I think both have growing hispanic populations.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

They aren't going to win Montana and Idaho any time soon (and probably not Utah either).

Utah is the least likely of these states to become D, and Montana the most.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Rumors of the Democratic party's death are greatly exaggerated.  They still have public opinion on their side, and they still won the popular vote.  If anything, it's Republicans who need a suburban strategy.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

They aren't going to win Montana and Idaho any time soon (and probably not Utah either).

Utah is the least likely of these states to become D, and Montana the most.

I'd say Utah is definitely more likely than Montana, but almost all of them are impossible, so "likely" doesn't mean much in this case.

Why? Montana actually does elect democrats, and I get the feeling that a lot of the mountain west isn't as great of a fit for the way the republicans are trending as some think. Not that the same doesn't apply to democrats as well...

Both parties seem to want to become eastern parties.

[TDAS04]

That's a better Presidential strategy.  Texas and Arizona are great electoral prizes but in the Senate winning in Texas wouldn't make up for losing in a Midwestern state.

I'm not talking about Texas and Arizona. I'm taking about Alaska, Montana, Idaho, and Utah.

Alaska's the only one of those that seem plausible (it's pretty diverse ethnically) but even that's iffy.

Montana is more like the Dakotas than people think (especially the prairie eastern portion of Montana). It's not as conservative, but has had similar trends.

Utah and Idaho?  Will the Republicans piss off the Mormons that much?  I doubt it.

[Virginiá]

Rumors of the Democratic party's death are greatly exaggerated.  They still have public opinion on their side, and they still won the popular vote.  If anything, it's Republicans who need a suburban strategy.

Yeah, the people assuming that the educated suburbanites will inevitably swing back to Trump and the GOP and ensure a permanent R majority!1!1! Are actually pretty hilarious. Public opinion has shown already that basically everything the GOP and Trump have done so far (or plan to do) is underwater, oftentimes by huge margins, except on a few cabinet posts and Obamacare repeal (and even that could change given how they don't even have a viable plan after seven years of screaming bloody murder). This is literallg setting the stage for backlash like we've never seen, but oh well. I'm just an unaffiliated observer, what do I know? 😂

Not to mention that because the president essentially becomes the face/leader of his or her party, what people think of that person inevitably bleeds down at least somewhat to the rest of their party. It's part of why presidents cost their party downballot in midterms. Just like Obama, Trump is going to continue influencing the people he pushed away throughout his presidency. This is why it is so important to get the right person in the White House - if you put someone hated in there, they could seriously hurt your party. People tend to focus too much on that one person at the top.

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/5/12712932/american-state-government-federalism

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The fact is, the average voter does not behave like Atlas posters. They don't know much about many of the other offices. If these suburbanites didn't like Trump in November and continue to not like him by 2018-2020, then I think its inevitable that Republicans in those regions suffer at some point.

Lastly, it's worth noting here that as educated Millennials (white or non-white) grow up and spread out, they will most likely begin tilting certain suburbs more towards Democrats. The electorate is not static. It constantly changes, and when one party completely ignores and even persistently alienates an entire generation, they will pay for it sooner or later.

[hopper]

Rumors of the Democratic party's death are greatly exaggerated.  They still have public opinion on their side, and they still won the popular vote.  If anything, it's Republicans who need a suburban strategy.

Popular Vote didn't mean anything this cycle though. I do agree I don't see the Democrats dying.

[hopper]

Rumors of the Democratic party's death are greatly exaggerated.  They still have public opinion on their side, and they still won the popular vote.  If anything, it's Republicans who need a suburban strategy.

Yeah, the people assuming that the educated suburbanites will inevitably swing back to Trump and the GOP and ensure a permanent R majority!1!1! Are actually pretty hilarious. Public opinion has shown already that basically everything the GOP and Trump have done so far (or plan to do) is underwater, oftentimes by huge margins, except on a few cabinet posts and Obamacare repeal (and even that could change given how they don't even have a viable plan after seven years of screaming bloody murder). This is literallg setting the stage for backlash like we've never seen, but oh well. I'm just an unaffiliated observer, what do I know? 😂

Not to mention that because the president essentially becomes the face/leader of his or her party, what people think of that person inevitably bleeds down at least somewhat to the rest of their party. It's part of why presidents cost their party downballot in midterms. Just like Obama, Trump is going to continue influencing the people he pushed away throughout his presidency. This is why it is so important to get the right person in the White House - if you put someone hated in there, they could seriously hurt your party. People tend to focus too much on that one person at the top.

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/5/12712932/american-state-government-federalism

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The fact is, the average voter does not behave like Atlas posters. They don't know much about many of the other offices. If these suburbanites didn't like Trump in November and continue to not like him by 2018-2020, then I think its inevitable that Republicans in those regions suffer at some point.

Lastly, it's worth noting here that as educated Millennials (white or non-white) grow up and spread out, they will most likely begin tilting certain suburbs more towards Democrats. The electorate is not static. It constantly changes, and when one party completely ignores and even persistently alienates an entire generation, they will pay for it sooner or later.

It's even more dangerous for downballot Republicans because Trump is already lower than Obama ever was at any point. Like it or not people, Trump is the Republican Party now. And suburbanites will likely see it that way and start voting accordingly, unless of course the Democrats go bat-sh**t insane.

Trump hasn't even took office yet. Obama was like a "rock star" when he entered office in January 2009.

True I do agree that downballot the Republican Party will be tied to Trump but Democrats were tied to Obama downballot too.

[hopper]

They aren't going to win Montana and Idaho any time soon (and probably not Utah either).

Not any time soon, which is why I put it in the trends board. But the Midwest is not going to be Safe R any time soon either. I'm talking about what Democrats should do if/when that happens.

Of course, it's possible that winning back the Midwest is easier than winning those Western states.

You pretty much answered your own question . I think Alaska, if anything, and working on making sure that Oregon and Washington stay strongly D, because those are the most logical states for Republicans to look to once they realize that the Midwest won't be enough to cancel out the Sun Belt losses when R's eventually do lose the Sun Belt. Fwiw, R's IMO will never be "locks" in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania. The growing areas of those state are in D trending suburban counties (Montgomery, Chester, Delaware, Oakland... Hell, even Wayne and Philadelphia are increasing in population relative to the state) while the rural areas are mostly shedding population, and at alarming rates. D's will need to win Senate seats in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Minnesota in order to even have a chance at a majority in the future, especially if D's become reliant upon states like GA, TX (which is liable for an unfriendly R electorate in midterms with Latino dropoff), and AZ (same situation as TX). Of the Midwestern states, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Ohio seem like the only long-term permanent R states barring a wave. Minnesota is fluky.

Wayne County, MI('s) Population has decreased 3.4% or 61,429 people since the 2010 Census while Michigan as a whole has grown by 0.5% or 44,660 people during the same time period.

I do think Michigan will have a Republican US Senator one of these days.

True Michigan will never be an "R" lock.

I could see Chester County, PA going back to where it was in 2012 post-Trump as Romney won the county.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Rumors of the Democratic party's death are greatly exaggerated.  They still have public opinion on their side, and they still won the popular vote.  If anything, it's Republicans who need a suburban strategy.

Yeah, the people assuming that the educated suburbanites will inevitably swing back to Trump and the GOP and ensure a permanent R majority!1!1!

I'm talking about after Trump leaves office.

[hopper]

Rumors of the Democratic party's death are greatly exaggerated.  They still have public opinion on their side, and they still won the popular vote.  If anything, it's Republicans who need a suburban strategy.

Yeah, the people assuming that the educated suburbanites will inevitably swing back to Trump and the GOP and ensure a permanent R majority!1!1! Are actually pretty hilarious. Public opinion has shown already that basically everything the GOP and Trump have done so far (or plan to do) is underwater, oftentimes by huge margins, except on a few cabinet posts and Obamacare repeal (and even that could change given how they don't even have a viable plan after seven years of screaming bloody murder). This is literallg setting the stage for backlash like we've never seen, but oh well. I'm just an unaffiliated observer, what do I know? 😂

Not to mention that because the president essentially becomes the face/leader of his or her party, what people think of that person inevitably bleeds down at least somewhat to the rest of their party. It's part of why presidents cost their party downballot in midterms. Just like Obama, Trump is going to continue influencing the people he pushed away throughout his presidency. This is why it is so important to get the right person in the White House - if you put someone hated in there, they could seriously hurt your party. People tend to focus too much on that one person at the top.

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/5/12712932/american-state-government-federalism

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The fact is, the average voter does not behave like Atlas posters. They don't know much about many of the other offices. If these suburbanites didn't like Trump in November and continue to not like him by 2018-2020, then I think its inevitable that Republicans in those regions suffer at some point.

Lastly, it's worth noting here that as educated Millennials (white or non-white) grow up and spread out, they will most likely begin tilting certain suburbs more towards Democrats. The electorate is not static. It constantly changes, and when one party completely ignores and even persistently alienates an entire generation, they will pay for it sooner or later.

It's even more dangerous for downballot Republicans because Trump is already lower than Obama ever was at any point. Like it or not people, Trump is the Republican Party now. And suburbanites will likely see it that way and start voting accordingly, unless of course the Democrats go bat-sh**t insane.

Trump hasn't even took office yet. Obama was like a "rock star" when he entered office in January 2009.

True I do agree that downballot the Republican Party will be tied to Trump but Democrats were tied to Obama downballot too.

That's my point. Obama sank Democrats everywhere (but particularly hard in the blue dog areas that McCain had won in 2008), and he had a 45%-48% approval rating (not that bad at all when compared to Trump). Anyone thinking those 24 Republicans sitting in Clinton districts are immune to being tied to Trump are off their rocker. They'll be the first to go in even a small blue wave.

Well Obama had a 47% Approval Rating on Election Day 2010 to be exact I think. I don't all 24 "Hillary House Districts" that Congressional Republicans occupy in 2017-2018 are all gonna go to the Dems in 2018. Some will some won't and Congressional Republicans could lose seats in marginal Trump Districts.

[Vosem]

Alaska is following the same trends as Colorado was in the 1990s, as there's a lot of in-migration from relatively liberal types and the state is small enough that when they get mobilized politically that change could be pretty drastic. It's also a state that has a very suburban GOP and may be susceptible to a broader nationwide trend towards the Democrats in suburbs. It's also very elastic and used to voting for both parties at the local level.

Utah, like Alaska, is broadly a very suburban state, where the suburbs can consistently outvote rural areas. Utahn suburbs, since they are very Mormon, are much more right-wing than other areas; the simple question is where the McMullin dissidents will go next. Utah has enough of a white-liberal Democratic base in SLC that if they decide to vote Democratic presidentially, the state will flip, indeed to a high-single-digits Democratic victory. I suspect this is a plausible scenario for 2020 in the event of Trump being broadly unpopular, but unless Trumpism is very successful at taking root in the Republican Party I doubt Utah will continue to vote Democratic into the 2020s. Still, the state is very young and the people have very cosmopolitan values (see Utah being the only Republican-governed state whose Governor announced that Syrian refugees were welcome); it is an option for the immediate future.

The other states seem less likely. A Mormon third-party that captured all Mormons would put Idaho into play, but it's clear that rural Mormons weren't that offended by Trump and Idaho Mormons are much more rural than their Utah counterparts. Montana Democrats are dependent on white working-class votes and it doesn't seem like a very logical place for modern Democratic Party gains.

I suspect Wyoming is vulnerable to an influx of liberals like what happened to VT and CO, and is happening to AK; the parallel seems to be areas where tourism is a very big part of the economy, and WY has that going for them; they're also small enough that it wouldn't necessarily take a very large influx to radically change the state's political culture. But...it clearly isn't happening yet. And it would take 15-20 years to play out.

Well...yeah. Every losing party has a few bright spots. Gerlach, Shays, and Heather Wilson all survived 2006. Boren, Ross, and Giffords all survived 2010. But if 2018 is a big-ish wave (not implausible if Trump's approvals are perpetually sh**tty), I'd wager that 3/4ths of the Clinton Republican congresspeople will lose. People like IRL, Curbelo, Comstock, Coffman, Valadao, and Paulsen, all seeming to be electoral superstars, would be fighting for their political lives. Then there'll be all those people who sit in marginal Trump seats (like you mentioned) that would be toppled in such a scenario. Dems only need 24 seats total, though they should shoot for more like 35-40 to allow for ideological flexibility to account for the Collin Petersons and Kurt Schraders of the caucus.

People are severely underestimating the odds of a Speaker Pelosi redux (if Democrats can compete in formerly-safe seats that swung heavily D in 2016, and I suspect that if Trump's approvals stay where they are then they'll be able to, then the Republican gerrymanders are broken and the path to the Speakership is very straightforward) and severely overestimating the odds of SML Schumer anytime within the next six years (maybe if 2018 and 2020 are ludicrously D-favorable years, it can happen, but I suspect Democrats will need to wait until 2022 for another shot at Senate control).

My very crude universal swing model for 2018 (Rs win every seat that voted for Trump by a margin of 5 points or more; Dems win everything else) showed D+30 in the House and R+4 in the Senate. I doubt Democrats will actually gain D+30 in the House, since House races are less nationalized than senatorial ones and there's a lot of popular Republican incumbents in downballot Republican territory that Democrats would need to take out, but the point is that large Democratic gains in 2018 are a quite plausible scenario.