The next Missouri/inverse of VA/CO?

[MT Treasurer]

Since I found PragmaticPopulist's thread about "the next VA/CO" quite interesting, I thought it would be nice to have a similar one, but this time regarding states which might be trending Republican.

So... which states do you think are going the way of MO or becoming the inverse of CO and VA in the long term?

[Heisenberg]

Not being hackish, but I think all 4 will. Iowa should be set in stone as early as 2020. Ohio is moving that way, so is Wisconsin (but that'll take a little longer). Maine, probably not until 2028/30, but it'll be interesting to see if Trump campaigns in ME-01 in 2020 (he won't win it, but he needs to improve there to carry ME-AL).

[Technocracy Timmy]

Other:

[Heisenberg]

Other:

Only way this even has a chance at happening is the Democrats becoming pro-life and the Republicans becoming pro-choice.

[Xing]

Iowa seems the most likely, with Ohio as a possibility. I think Wisconsin will remain competitive unless Madison starts losing population, and the rural parts of the state gain population. I'm not fully convinced Maine is actually a swing state, and since the part of the state that trended sharply Republican is losing population, I certainly don't see it becoming a red state.

[RINO Tom]

Iowa seems the most likely, with Ohio as a possibility. I think Wisconsin will remain competitive unless Madison starts losing population, and the rural parts of the state gain population. I'm not fully convinced Maine is actually a swing state, and since the part of the state that trended sharply Republican is losing population, I certainly don't see it becoming a red state.

This is somewhat lazy analysis, no?  Milwaukee's suburbs are the most consistently Republican part of the state, and Scott Walker has proved that the GOP doesn't need Trump's rural margins to win the state at all (in fact, Walker lost a lot of traditionally Democratic rural areas while maintaining normal GOP margins in MKE suburbs and won the state by more than Trump).

Anyway, I say Ohio.  This is how Ohio's voters voted in 2016 by type of location:

Urban (31%): 58% DEM, 38% GOP
Suburban (59%): 57% GOP, 37% DEM
Rural (9%): 69% GOP, 27% DEM

That means, with some simple math, that the GOP's coalition was:

65% Suburban
23% Urban
12% Rural

In other words, even with Trump on the ballot, Ohio's suburban voters remained SOLID Republican voters ... they were literally as Republican as urban voters were Democratic.  With no signs of them moving Democratic, this seems like a state Republicans will hold for a while.  If you literally only count the GOP's urban and suburban voters, the ticket would still beat the Democrats vote totals from all three categories by 3%.

[Xing]

Iowa seems the most likely, with Ohio as a possibility. I think Wisconsin will remain competitive unless Madison starts losing population, and the rural parts of the state gain population. I'm not fully convinced Maine is actually a swing state, and since the part of the state that trended sharply Republican is losing population, I certainly don't see it becoming a red state.

This is somewhat lazy analysis, no?  Milwaukee's suburbs are the most consistently Republican part of the state, and Scott Walker has proved that the GOP doesn't need Trump's rural margins to win the state at all (in fact, Walker lost a lot of traditionally Democratic rural areas while maintaining normal GOP margins in MKE suburbs and won the state by more than Trump).

Anyway, I say Ohio.  This is how Ohio's voters voted in 2016 by type of location:

Urban (31%): 58% DEM, 38% GOP
Suburban (59%): 57% GOP, 37% DEM
Rural (9%): 69% GOP, 27% DEM

That means, with some simple math, that the GOP's coalition was:

65% Suburban
23% Urban
12% Rural

In other words, even with Trump on the ballot, Ohio's suburban voters remained SOLID Republican voters ... they were literally as Republican as urban voters were Democratic.  With no signs of them moving Democratic, this seems like a state Republicans will hold for a while.  If you literally only count the GOP's urban and suburban voters, the ticket would still beat the Democrats vote totals from all three categories by 3%.

I wasn't saying that Republicans can't win Wisconsin without rural growth. I was saying that if Wisconsin were to "go the way of Missouri" (where growth in the rural areas was key to it becoming "redder"), that would require the city/suburb/rural balance to change. Since Madison is gaining population, I don't see the urban vote losing influence in the state, and this Democrats should continue to be competitive there.

[RINO Tom]

Iowa seems the most likely, with Ohio as a possibility. I think Wisconsin will remain competitive unless Madison starts losing population, and the rural parts of the state gain population. I'm not fully convinced Maine is actually a swing state, and since the part of the state that trended sharply Republican is losing population, I certainly don't see it becoming a red state.

This is somewhat lazy analysis, no?  Milwaukee's suburbs are the most consistently Republican part of the state, and Scott Walker has proved that the GOP doesn't need Trump's rural margins to win the state at all (in fact, Walker lost a lot of traditionally Democratic rural areas while maintaining normal GOP margins in MKE suburbs and won the state by more than Trump).

Anyway, I say Ohio.  This is how Ohio's voters voted in 2016 by type of location:

Urban (31%): 58% DEM, 38% GOP
Suburban (59%): 57% GOP, 37% DEM
Rural (9%): 69% GOP, 27% DEM

That means, with some simple math, that the GOP's coalition was:

65% Suburban
23% Urban
12% Rural

In other words, even with Trump on the ballot, Ohio's suburban voters remained SOLID Republican voters ... they were literally as Republican as urban voters were Democratic.  With no signs of them moving Democratic, this seems like a state Republicans will hold for a while.  If you literally only count the GOP's urban and suburban voters, the ticket would still beat the Democrats vote totals from all three categories by 3%.

I wasn't saying that Republicans can't win Wisconsin without rural growth. I was saying that if Wisconsin were to "go the way of Missouri" (where growth in the rural areas was key to it becoming "redder"), that would require the city/suburb/rural balance to change. Since Madison is gaining population, I don't see the urban vote losing influence in the state, and this Democrats should continue to be competitive there.

Ah, got it!!

[BuckeyeNut]

All these states are possible, but I think Ohio will remain a swing state for some time. The Ohio Democratic brand recovered from major swings to the Republicanism under Reagan, and it can happen again.

Though the obvious lesson going forward is take nothing for granted.

[TheSaint250]

Not being hackish, but I think all 4 will.

[TheSaint250]

All these states are possible, but I think Ohio will remain a swing state for some time. The Ohio Democratic brand recovered from major swings to the Republicanism under Reagan, and it can happen again.

Though the obvious lesson going forward is take nothing for granted.

The gubernatorial election and the Senate election will certainly show whether the Dems can recover or not

[BuckeyeNut]

All these states are possible, but I think Ohio will remain a swing state for some time. The Ohio Democratic brand recovered from major swings to the Republicanism under Reagan, and it can happen again.

Though the obvious lesson going forward is take nothing for granted.

The gubernatorial election and the Senate election will certainly show whether the Dems can recover or not

True enough. I guess one thing to remember is that while Ohio's been the quintessential swing state for some time, it has always had a Republican tilt. Which, IMO, makes changes in Wisconsin much more concerning.

[PragmaticPopulist]

I'm always skeptical of these kinds of states. The midwest as a whole tends to swing against the party in power, while Maine is probably the most elastic state in the nation.

If any of them falls out of reach for Democrats, I'd think it would be Iowa, but the state party has a big bench, and the R trend started fairly recently. I can see Democrats regaining ground here if they focus less on identity politics and more on agricultural issues.

The next in line would probably be Ohio, but like I said, it has a tendency to swing against the incumbent party. After Bob Taft left office in disgrace, Democrats won the senate seat and governorship in landslides.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

Despite Ohio having more urban areas than Iowa that should in theory lift up Democrats, I see Ohio staying towards the right as more likely than Iowa. Obama won Iowa in 2008 and 2012 by significantly greater margins than in Ohio.

[This is Eharding, guys]

Despite Ohio having more urban areas than Iowa that should in theory lift up Democrats, I see Ohio staying towards the right as more likely than Iowa. Obama won Iowa in 2008 and 2012 by significantly greater margins than in Ohio.

Agreed, and for the same reasons RINO Tom points out. But the biggest argument in favor of Ohio being the most likely next Missouri is that it is more Appalachian in character and poorer.

[Young Conservative]

Iowa, Ohio, and Maine District 2 will all become Republican areas.

[icemanj]

Just Iowa for now. I just go by my gut feeling, but I think Ohio will still be a swing state for some time, and I think Wisconsin and Maine will still be lean D, although competitive, for some time.

[Del Tachi]

Iowa and Maine probably.

I don't think many of you realize how terrible of shape rural Maine is in.  Dem's will probably continue to win the Portland-based district, but the rural part of the state is probably turning away from them for the foreseeable future.

[Ye We Can]

Nobody suggests Minnesota?

[RINO Tom]

Iowa and Maine probably.

I don't think many of you realize how terrible of shape rural Maine is in.  Dem's will probably continue to win the Portland-based district, but the rural part of the state is probably turning away from them for the foreseeable future.

Why would an area being in terrible shape inherently mean it is drifting Republican...?

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

Iowa seems the most likely, with Ohio as a possibility. I think Wisconsin will remain competitive unless Madison starts losing population, and the rural parts of the state gain population. I'm not fully convinced Maine is actually a swing state, and since the part of the state that trended sharply Republican is losing population, I certainly don't see it becoming a red state.

This is somewhat lazy analysis, no?  Milwaukee's suburbs are the most consistently Republican part of the state, and Scott Walker has proved that the GOP doesn't need Trump's rural margins to win the state at all (in fact, Walker lost a lot of traditionally Democratic rural areas while maintaining normal GOP margins in MKE suburbs and won the state by more than Trump).

Anyway, I say Ohio.  This is how Ohio's voters voted in 2016 by type of location:

Urban (31%): 58% DEM, 38% GOP
Suburban (59%): 57% GOP, 37% DEM
Rural (9%): 69% GOP, 27% DEM

That means, with some simple math, that the GOP's coalition was:

65% Suburban
23% Urban
12% Rural

In other words, even with Trump on the ballot, Ohio's suburban voters remained SOLID Republican voters ... they were literally as Republican as urban voters were Democratic.  With no signs of them moving Democratic, this seems like a state Republicans will hold for a while.  If you literally only count the GOP's urban and suburban voters, the ticket would still beat the Democrats vote totals from all three categories by 3%.

Suburbs aren't all the same. Most of America is "suburban". In the sunbelt, most cities are made up mostly of areas with suburban style houses, including housing for the working poor. Suburbs in the vein of Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Tucson, NOVA, Atlanta, Los Angeles, and Denver aren't going to be dominated by republicans for all time just because some culturally conservative suburbs in Ohio went strongly R. These places are wildly different.

[RINO Tom]

Iowa seems the most likely, with Ohio as a possibility. I think Wisconsin will remain competitive unless Madison starts losing population, and the rural parts of the state gain population. I'm not fully convinced Maine is actually a swing state, and since the part of the state that trended sharply Republican is losing population, I certainly don't see it becoming a red state.

This is somewhat lazy analysis, no?  Milwaukee's suburbs are the most consistently Republican part of the state, and Scott Walker has proved that the GOP doesn't need Trump's rural margins to win the state at all (in fact, Walker lost a lot of traditionally Democratic rural areas while maintaining normal GOP margins in MKE suburbs and won the state by more than Trump).

Anyway, I say Ohio.  This is how Ohio's voters voted in 2016 by type of location:

Urban (31%): 58% DEM, 38% GOP
Suburban (59%): 57% GOP, 37% DEM
Rural (9%): 69% GOP, 27% DEM

That means, with some simple math, that the GOP's coalition was:

65% Suburban
23% Urban
12% Rural

In other words, even with Trump on the ballot, Ohio's suburban voters remained SOLID Republican voters ... they were literally as Republican as urban voters were Democratic.  With no signs of them moving Democratic, this seems like a state Republicans will hold for a while.  If you literally only count the GOP's urban and suburban voters, the ticket would still beat the Democrats vote totals from all three categories by 3%.

Suburbs aren't all the same. Most of America is "suburban". In the sunbelt, most cities are made up mostly of areas with suburban style houses, including housing for the working poor. Suburbs in the vein of Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Tucson, NOVA, Atlanta, Los Angeles, and Denver aren't going to be dominated by republicans for all time just because some culturally conservative suburbs in Ohio went strongly R. These places are wildly different.

They're obviously very different, and that's a good point.  However, my point was that while *suburban voters* in many places moved away from the GOP, Ohio's didn't.  And the topic is about what might become the inverse of VA(/apparently CO), and I think that's relevant to why OH might be a candidate.  Also, are you seriously suggesting that the suburbs of, say, Cincinnati (solidly Republican areas) are significantly more "culturally conservative" than the suburbs of Atlanta, Dallas or Houston?!  Not everyone votes for the GOP because they're "cultural conservatives," and many voters vote for a culturally conservative GOP not giving a flying shlt that it is culturally conservative and many are even be culturally liberal themselves.  Suburban areas seem to be ground zero for these types of Republicans, in general, and every single suburban area you named has TONS of these types of Republican voters, even if they happen to be outnumbered in one of those areas (NOVA).

[Heisenberg]

Okay, so you lump NOVA in with the rest of the "suburbs." How many times do I have to say this: They aren't voting Republican if they keep being the more anti-government party. That should be SO obvious. It would be very much against their interests to do so.

[PragmaticPopulist]

Okay, so you lump NOVA in with the rest of the "suburbs." How many times do I have to say this: They aren't voting Republican if they keep being the more anti-government party. That should be SO obvious. It would be very much against their interests to do so.

And NoVa suburbs are behaving more like Maryland's DC suburbs now. Jobs with the federal government are expanding there.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Ohio is more likely to become solid R than Iowa. Iowa went from roughly Obama +10 in 2008 to Trump +10 in 2016, indicating it's very swingy and elastic. Ohio was not a comfortable win for Obama in '12.