Why do people think WA/OR will trend Republican?

[Keep cool-idge]

Bump

[AN63093]

This is something I've wondered myself.  I've often seen these states in the R column with future trend maps or realignment maps, and I'm not sure I buy that.

Even in the case of a realignment, I'm not sure I'm buying it, and that's even if the realignment is couched in generational theory as Timmy describes (which I do give him credit for the effort and time he's taken to write about this theory).  But even if we're presuming all this, I do think it's quite a bit too early to make any predictions in terms of what future coalitions will look like.  I do think that a future realignment is bound to happen at some point- after all, the current party system won't exist in perpetuity.  Notwithstanding that, I think what future coalitions emerge are much more in flux than people seem to think.

For example, yes- we could end up with something resembling an Eisenhower-era GOP with lots of Rockefeller Republicans (though even in this case, I'd expect WA/OR to be some of the last states to flip R, if they ever do.. they may just trend R and become swing states).  But what if we end up with both parties moving in a populist direction (somewhat of the inverse of the Gilded Age) and we have extreme party polarization based almost wholly on racial stratification, in a South African type system?

Now I suspect many would say that couldn't happen, mainly because you wouldn't want it to happen and a system like that probably sounds like quite an ugly one to many of you.  But whether we like it or not, I find it to be a distinct possibility.  I guess I am somewhat echoing Skill&Chance then, in that we could see national white block voting in the future, but where we differ, is I think that even if that happens, WA/OR may still vote D since it would have some of the least likely whites to vote R, even in an era of racial polarization.

One other point, I think NOVA Green mentioned this- in terms of the local weakness of the GOP.  This is something I've thought about as well; it seems local politicians have a much harder time making in roads in this region than a place, like say, New England.  In other words, Charlie Baker could win MA, but I'm not sure even he could win WA or OR.  Now obviously, there are many other variables at play here- Baker ran against a poor candidate and maybe all the pacific NW GOP candidates are joke candidates (I must admit some ignorance here, the pacific NW is one of my least knowledgeable areas), but it seems to me that some of these races should've been winnable (take, e.g., the 2010 OR gubernatorial).  For whatever reason, Baker could overcome the "taint" of the national party, so to speak, and WA/OR Republicans cannot.  That may be worth considering.

Finally, Skill&Chance- absolutely superb post at the top of this page, in re: culture wars, etc.  Very much agree and well done.

[OSR stands with Israel]

This is something I've wondered myself.  I've often seen these states in the R column with future trend maps or realignment maps, and I'm not sure I buy that.

Even in the case of a realignment, I'm not sure I'm buying it, and that's even if the realignment is couched in generational theory as Timmy describes (which I do give him credit for the effort and time he's taken to write about this theory).  But even if we're presuming all this, I do think it's quite a bit too early to make any predictions in terms of what future coalitions will look like.  I do think that a future realignment is bound to happen at some point- after all, the current party system won't exist in perpetuity.  Notwithstanding that, I think what future coalitions emerge are much more in flux than people seem to think.

For example, yes- we could end up with something resembling an Eisenhower-era GOP with lots of Rockefeller Republicans (though even in this case, I'd expect WA/OR to be some of the last states to flip R, if they ever do.. they may just trend R and become swing states).  But what if we end up with both parties moving in a populist direction (somewhat of the inverse of the Gilded Age) and we have extreme party polarization based almost wholly on racial stratification, in a South African type system?

Now I suspect many would say that couldn't happen, mainly because you wouldn't want it to happen and a system like that probably sounds like quite an ugly one to many of you.  But whether we like it or not, I find it to be a distinct possibility.  I guess I am somewhat echoing Skill&Chance then, in that we could see national white block voting in the future, but where we differ, is I think that even if that happens, WA/OR may still vote D since it would have some of the least likely whites to vote R, even in an era of racial polarization.

One other point, I think NOVA Green mentioned this- in terms of the local weakness of the GOP.  This is something I've thought about as well; it seems local politicians have a much harder time making in roads in this region than a place, like say, New England.  In other words, Charlie Baker could win MA, but I'm not sure even he could win WA or OR.  Now obviously, there are many other variables at play here- Baker ran against a poor candidate and maybe all the pacific NW GOP candidates are joke candidates (I must admit some ignorance here, the pacific NW is one of my least knowledgeable areas), but it seems to me that some of these races should've been winnable (take, e.g., the 2010 OR gubernatorial).  For whatever reason, Baker could overcome the "taint" of the national party, so to speak, and WA/OR Republicans cannot.  That may be worth considering.

Finally, Skill&Chance- absolutely superb post at the top of this page, in re: culture wars, etc.  Very much agree and well done.

The reason the Oregon GOP cant win state wide races, is most of the times their primary process is controlled by the Eastern part of the state which is basically as conservative as Wyoming.

[NOVA Green]

This is something I've wondered myself.  I've often seen these states in the R column with future trend maps or realignment maps, and I'm not sure I buy that.

Even in the case of a realignment, I'm not sure I'm buying it, and that's even if the realignment is couched in generational theory as Timmy describes (which I do give him credit for the effort and time he's taken to write about this theory).  But even if we're presuming all this, I do think it's quite a bit too early to make any predictions in terms of what future coalitions will look like.  I do think that a future realignment is bound to happen at some point- after all, the current party system won't exist in perpetuity.  Notwithstanding that, I think what future coalitions emerge are much more in flux than people seem to think.

For example, yes- we could end up with something resembling an Eisenhower-era GOP with lots of Rockefeller Republicans (though even in this case, I'd expect WA/OR to be some of the last states to flip R, if they ever do.. they may just trend R and become swing states).  But what if we end up with both parties moving in a populist direction (somewhat of the inverse of the Gilded Age) and we have extreme party polarization based almost wholly on racial stratification, in a South African type system?

Now I suspect many would say that couldn't happen, mainly because you wouldn't want it to happen and a system like that probably sounds like quite an ugly one to many of you.  But whether we like it or not, I find it to be a distinct possibility.  I guess I am somewhat echoing Skill&Chance then, in that we could see national white block voting in the future, but where we differ, is I think that even if that happens, WA/OR may still vote D since it would have some of the least likely whites to vote R, even in an era of racial polarization.

One other point, I think NOVA Green mentioned this- in terms of the local weakness of the GOP.  This is something I've thought about as well; it seems local politicians have a much harder time making in roads in this region than a place, like say, New England.  In other words, Charlie Baker could win MA, but I'm not sure even he could win WA or OR.  Now obviously, there are many other variables at play here- Baker ran against a poor candidate and maybe all the pacific NW GOP candidates are joke candidates (I must admit some ignorance here, the pacific NW is one of my least knowledgeable areas), but it seems to me that some of these races should've been winnable (take, e.g., the 2010 OR gubernatorial).  For whatever reason, Baker could overcome the "taint" of the national party, so to speak, and WA/OR Republicans cannot.  That may be worth considering.

Finally, Skill&Chance- absolutely superb post at the top of this page, in re: culture wars, etc.  Very much agree and well done.

The reason the Oregon GOP cant win state wide races, is most of the times their primary process is controlled by the Eastern part of the state which is basically as conservative as Wyoming.

That is part of the equation Old School Republican, but only a fraction of the primary problem that the Republican Party faces in Oregon....

To do a brief historical summary of the political geography of Oregon, the Republican faced an intense and severe internal Civil War that roughly lasted six years, with the aftermath for a decade later.

So the 'Pubs went hard in the late '80s/Early '90s on items such as Anti-Gay and Abortion ballot initiatives. They essentially took control over the Oregon Republican Party by 1994, with the "Oregon Citizens Alliance" at the helm of what was a sinking ship, and singled the decline of the Republican Party at a competitive statewide level.

The OCA wing of the Republican Party, was not solely defined as an "Eastern Oregon" wing of the Party, but rather encompassed Republican voters from most of "downstate Oregon" including Southern Oregon and Mid-Valley regions as key areas of support of the new ascendant "Conservative Populist" wing of the the statewide Republican Party.

This naturally led to the eroding political brand of the Republican Party in key suburban counties in Metro-Portland, as well as a similar communities in places like Salem, Corvallis, Bend, and Eugene.

As Old School correctly noted, the trend of the 'Pub Party towards supporting extremist candidates for Federal and Statewide elections, contributed towards a direct causality of decline of party registration for Republicans, as the caliber of their candidates became extremely "radicalized" in order to win the Pub Primary process, creating various crops of candidates so extreme and nutzoid, that they couldn't come close generally to winning competitive elections in most parts of Oregon.

[OSR stands with Israel]

this is exactly why I think Oregon will become a swing state in the future(prob not statewide but at a national level yes), as the GOP will become less religious meaning they will do much better in Oregon then they are doing now as the Religious right is a huge reason why Oregon is so dem. Washington on the other hand wont become a swing state(it will become lean Dem though) .


Statewide, Im not sure the GOP will ever recover unless they manage to curb the influence of the Rural parts of the state.

[NOVA Green]

this is exactly why I think Oregon will become a swing state in the future(prob not statewide but at a national level yes), as the GOP will become less religious meaning they will do much better in Oregon then they are doing now as the Religious right is a huge reason why Oregon is so dem. Washington on the other hand wont become a swing state(it will become lean Dem though) .


Statewide, Im not sure the GOP will ever recover unless they manage to curb the influence of the Rural parts of the state.

I think your concept of Oregon becoming a "swing state" is a bit far fetched, even by 2030 assuming  that somehow culturally liberal voters in places like the suburbs of Portland, Salem, Corvallis, and Eugene, start voting Republican again at a Presidential Level, that this will be sufficient to make Oregon a competitive state.

One might make a better case that these voters if they start shifting en masse, would make Oregon possibly voting Republican for Oregon Governor, and possibly at the US-House level, and *maybe* start to make up lost ground at the US-SEN level.

Old School--- your definition of "rural Oregon" is very different from mine. The vast majority of "rural" counties have a significant City anchor component. Typically, these areas tend to vote much more Democratic than Rural areas proper.

The reality is that these anchor cities in "rural Oregon" have shifted towards the Republicans more on perception of economic issues than social issues.

Dems shifting towards more of an outright economic populist message, will gain voters in "downstate" Oregon, and easily offset and 'Pub gains at the margins in wealthier precincts in places like West Portland, parts of Washington County, Lake Oswego, not to mention wealthier residents in places in the Hills outside of Eugene and Corvallis.

Sure,, the shift of the Republican Party as a statewide brand towards the Religious Right in the late '80s/ early '90s, with the Oregon Citizens Alliance and all of that homophobic crap they kept pushing, was a direct causality of the massive swings in these places over the next decade or so towards the Democratic Party. Still, it is only a part of the equation when one examines why these places started shifting hard Democratic. Honestly, I'm not convinced that simply "rebranding" the Republican Party will come close to recouping the lost voters in these communities.

The Iraq War was a major issue in the Pacific Northwest.... the lies and deceptions of the W. administration, and a weak President that allowed a small number of extremists ("The Vulcans") to dominate US foreign policy and cause and illegal and unjust war in Iraq, is a major component when you look at the flips in the educated suburbs of Portland, etc....

Oregon has always been a dovish State, from the days of Tom Maccoll and Mark Hatfield to the present day. I have posted elsewhere, that this is the key reason why Republican Senator Gordon Smith was unseated in '08....

It's also the same reason that both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump were able to perform so well in their respective Party primaries....

Meanwhile voters in the suburbs of Portland suburbs are more than happy to vote for minimum wage increases, increases in corporate tax levels, increasing taxes on those making > $250k/Yr, etc.

Not sure about a hypothetical plan to swing Oregon at a Presidential Level, unless the Republican candidates start acting and talking a lot more like Democrats, not just on social issues.

[OSR stands with Israel]

this is exactly why I think Oregon will become a swing state in the future(prob not statewide but at a national level yes), as the GOP will become less religious meaning they will do much better in Oregon then they are doing now as the Religious right is a huge reason why Oregon is so dem. Washington on the other hand wont become a swing state(it will become lean Dem though) .


Statewide, Im not sure the GOP will ever recover unless they manage to curb the influence of the Rural parts of the state.

I think your concept of Oregon becoming a "swing state" is a bit far fetched, even by 2030 assuming  that somehow culturally liberal voters in places like the suburbs of Portland, Salem, Corvallis, and Eugene, start voting Republican again at a Presidential Level, that this will be sufficient to make Oregon a competitive state.

One might make a better case that these voters if they start shifting en masse, would make Oregon possibly voting Republican for Oregon Governor, and possibly at the US-House level, and *maybe* start to make up lost ground at the US-SEN level.

Old School--- your definition of "rural Oregon" is very different from mine. The vast majority of "rural" counties have a significant City anchor component. Typically, these areas tend to vote much more Democratic than Rural areas proper.

The reality is that these anchor cities in "rural Oregon" have shifted towards the Republicans more on perception of economic issues than social issues.

Dems shifting towards more of an outright economic populist message, will gain voters in "downstate" Oregon, and easily offset and 'Pub gains at the margins in wealthier precincts in places like West Portland, parts of Washington County, Lake Oswego, not to mention wealthier residents in places in the Hills outside of Eugene and Corvallis.

Sure,, the shift of the Republican Party as a statewide brand towards the Religious Right in the late '80s/ early '90s, with the Oregon Citizens Alliance and all of that homophobic crap they kept pushing, was a direct causality of the massive swings in these places over the next decade or so towards the Democratic Party. Still, it is only a part of the equation when one examines why these places started shifting hard Democratic. Honestly, I'm not convinced that simply "rebranding" the Republican Party will come close to recouping the lost voters in these communities.

The Iraq War was a major issue in the Pacific Northwest.... the lies and deceptions of the W. administration, and a weak President that allowed a small number of extremists ("The Vulcans") to dominate US foreign policy and cause and illegal and unjust war in Iraq, is a major component when you look at the flips in the educated suburbs of Portland, etc....

Oregon has always been a dovish State, from the days of Tom Maccoll and Mark Hatfield to the present day. I have posted elsewhere, that this is the key reason why Republican Senator Gordon Smith was unseated in '08....

It's also the same reason that both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump were able to perform so well in their respective Party primaries....

Meanwhile voters in the suburbs of Portland suburbs are more than happy to vote for minimum wage increases, increases in corporate tax levels, increasing taxes on those making > $250k/Yr, etc.

Not sure about a hypothetical plan to swing Oregon at a Presidential Level, unless the Republican candidates start acting and talking a lot more like Democrats, not just on social issues.

When you look at county by county , the rural parts of Oregon look just as Republican as the states like Idaho and Wyoming are .

Ill give you an example of elections in Oregon:

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?f=0&fips=41&year=1968
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?f=0&fips=41&year=1996
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?f=0&fips=41&year=2016


Looking county by county the GOP has pretty much dominated Eastern Oregon , do pretty well downstate , and other then a few counties like Wascow , and Morrow rural Oregon hasnt changed much. Its been mostly the suburbs what changed .

[Dr. MB]

The Republicans can't win Oregon on the presidential level as long as they keep nominating Trump and Cruz like candidates. Kasich would've lost by maybe 4-5 points.

[Sumner 1868]

"Kasich would have done better" is the 2017 version of "Hillary is more electable."

In any case, a lot of you are underestimating the extent of public sector unions have in elections in WA. We're forth in the country in terms of unionization, and the government is the largest employer in the state. That is a major factor for the state Democratic tilt.

[NOVA Green]

this is exactly why I think Oregon will become a swing state in the future(prob not statewide but at a national level yes), as the GOP will become less religious meaning they will do much better in Oregon then they are doing now as the Religious right is a huge reason why Oregon is so dem. Washington on the other hand wont become a swing state(it will become lean Dem though) .


Statewide, Im not sure the GOP will ever recover unless they manage to curb the influence of the Rural parts of the state.

I think your concept of Oregon becoming a "swing state" is a bit far fetched, even by 2030 assuming  that somehow culturally liberal voters in places like the suburbs of Portland, Salem, Corvallis, and Eugene, start voting Republican again at a Presidential Level, that this will be sufficient to make Oregon a competitive state.

One might make a better case that these voters if they start shifting en masse, would make Oregon possibly voting Republican for Oregon Governor, and possibly at the US-House level, and *maybe* start to make up lost ground at the US-SEN level.

Old School--- your definition of "rural Oregon" is very different from mine. The vast majority of "rural" counties have a significant City anchor component. Typically, these areas tend to vote much more Democratic than Rural areas proper.

The reality is that these anchor cities in "rural Oregon" have shifted towards the Republicans more on perception of economic issues than social issues.

Dems shifting towards more of an outright economic populist message, will gain voters in "downstate" Oregon, and easily offset and 'Pub gains at the margins in wealthier precincts in places like West Portland, parts of Washington County, Lake Oswego, not to mention wealthier residents in places in the Hills outside of Eugene and Corvallis.

Sure,, the shift of the Republican Party as a statewide brand towards the Religious Right in the late '80s/ early '90s, with the Oregon Citizens Alliance and all of that homophobic crap they kept pushing, was a direct causality of the massive swings in these places over the next decade or so towards the Democratic Party. Still, it is only a part of the equation when one examines why these places started shifting hard Democratic. Honestly, I'm not convinced that simply "rebranding" the Republican Party will come close to recouping the lost voters in these communities.

The Iraq War was a major issue in the Pacific Northwest.... the lies and deceptions of the W. administration, and a weak President that allowed a small number of extremists ("The Vulcans") to dominate US foreign policy and cause and illegal and unjust war in Iraq, is a major component when you look at the flips in the educated suburbs of Portland, etc....

Oregon has always been a dovish State, from the days of Tom Maccoll and Mark Hatfield to the present day. I have posted elsewhere, that this is the key reason why Republican Senator Gordon Smith was unseated in '08....

It's also the same reason that both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump were able to perform so well in their respective Party primaries....

Meanwhile voters in the suburbs of Portland suburbs are more than happy to vote for minimum wage increases, increases in corporate tax levels, increasing taxes on those making > $250k/Yr, etc.

Not sure about a hypothetical plan to swing Oregon at a Presidential Level, unless the Republican candidates start acting and talking a lot more like Democrats, not just on social issues.

When you look at county by county , the rural parts of Oregon look just as Republican as the states like Idaho and Wyoming are .

Ill give you an example of elections in Oregon:

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?f=0&fips=41&year=1968
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?f=0&fips=41&year=1996
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?f=0&fips=41&year=2016


Looking county by county the GOP has pretty much dominated Eastern Oregon , do pretty well downstate , and other then a few counties like Wascow , and Morrow rural Oregon hasnt changed much. Its been mostly the suburbs what changed .

Define suburbs of where, and how they have changed?

My apologies if I am misrepresenting your argument in any way shape or form....

It sounds like you are pulling up a few relatively small rural counties in Eastern Oregon with both a rapidly aging Anglo population, as well as a rapidly increasingly Latino population younger than voting age about some sort of argument about trends in Oregon?

You do realize that the current counties located within the Oregon 2nd Congressional District are starting to become both increasingly voting age Latino, as well as in the largest counties in the district college educated Anglos (Deschutes & Jackson County)....

Your obsession with the suburbs of Metro Portland, once again indicates your extreme naivety and lack of understanding about the reality of the 50% of Oregonians that don't reside in Metro Portland....

The reality is that the Republican Party brand is basically dead gone and buried in places like Gresham, East Portland, Salem, Springfield, West Eugene, and other larger WWC towns and places throughout Oregon.

Sure, we can talk about major swings towards Trump in '16 in Mill Towns such as Toledo (Lincoln County), Warrenton (Clatsop Co), Cottage Grove (lane Co), etc.... but it does seem a bit imho that you are obsessively fixated on one small region of Oregon.

Let's face it.... Trump only captured 49% in Albany Oregon (Beating HRC by 8%), but most of the rest of the voters wrote in Bernie, or voted Green or Libertarian....

This is a City that only voted for Obama with 51% in '08, so hard to see how the results of the '16 election were solely a result of the "suburban vote".

Once again your obsession and unrealistic fixation on Metro PDX is blinding you to the reality of where the rest of us Oregonians actually live and work......

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Because the fastest-growing parts of those states are the most solidly Republican.

Of course, the big population centers (Portland, Seattle, etc.) are getting bluer in the age of Trump, so I doubt much will change anytime soon.  If anything, they will become MORE liberal.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Basically they eventually see the end of the Southern Strategy after Trump.

The Southern strategy has been refuted by many scholars. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html
http://www.claremont.org/crb/article/the-myth-of-the-racist-republicans/

[Virginiá]

Basically they eventually see the end of the Southern Strategy after Trump.

The Southern strategy has been refuted by many scholars. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html
http://www.claremont.org/crb/article/the-myth-of-the-racist-republicans/

Personally, I've much preferred the theories stated by the Claremont link for some time now, but at the same time, I don't think it changes some of the rhetoric or policies pushed by the GOP. It doesn't have to be some sort of cohesive strategy all Republicans agree to implement with a wink and a nod. It also doesn't have to mean that this dog whistling is even necessary for Republicans to make the same gains, but they do it anyway because they think it's necessary.

Also, I have to admit, for some people who stress the points made in the Claremont link, I think it's kind of ironic when it comes to this part:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Part of the theory is that young Southerners were trending to the GOP and basically stayed that way as they aged, thus turning the South more Republican. Yet, when myself and others on here state the same processes at work with Millennials and other young(er) voters, it's dismissed as silly "demographics is destiny" and "people won't always vote the same way" or "people get more conservative as they age" stuff. Not to say you ever said that, but I know some others here that have.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Personally, I could see Oregon voting for the right kind of Republican, but Washington would be harder for a Republican to win, barring a massive national landslide.

[RINO Tom]

Basically they eventually see the end of the Southern Strategy after Trump.

The Southern strategy has been refuted by many scholars. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html
http://www.claremont.org/crb/article/the-myth-of-the-racist-republicans/

Personally, I've much preferred the theories stated by the Claremont link for some time now, but at the same time, I don't think it changes some of the rhetoric or policies pushed by the GOP. It doesn't have to be some sort of cohesive strategy all Republicans agree to implement with a wink and a nod. It also doesn't have to mean that this dog whistling is even necessary for Republicans to make the same gains, but they do it anyway because they think it's necessary.

Also, I have to admit, for some people who stress the points made in the Claremont link, I think it's kind of ironic when it comes to this part:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Part of the theory is that young Southerners were trending to the GOP and basically stayed that way as they aged, thus turning the South more Republican. Yet, when myself and others on here state the same processes at work with Millennials and other young(er) voters, it's dismissed as silly "demographics is destiny" and "people won't always vote the same way" or "people get more conservative as they age" stuff. Not to say you ever said that, but I know some others here that have.

The bolded text is what bothers people, I think.  If you're going to be a part of the "Demographics will catch up with the GOP" crowd, you damn sure better not be a part of the "all the Dixiecrats became Republicans in 1964" crowd.  Consistency is respected, especially when only one of the scenarios makes your "side" look good.

(Obviously not talking about you, just many less smart red avatars )

[NOVA Green]

So why has this thread regarding the potential for WA/OR to trend Republican somehow turned into a discussion regarding Dixiecrats, and items of that nature?

Sure I get the concept that if Southern Whites start swing a bit more Democratic at a National level, it will likely cause the PacNW to trend Republican, considering that likely they hit the floor with Trump as their Pres standard flag dude....

Still, OR and WA had some of the highest level of support for 3rd Party Candidates coming from the Left, so even in Southern and MidWest Whites start swinging back, there is a very good chance that Dem margins might actually pick up a few points in 2020 without HRC at the top of the ticket.

Sure WA/OR might trend Republican if there is a massive swing towards the Democratic candidate in the South and Midwest, but other than that trending if anything will be marginal or Non-existent in 2020 with Trump at the top of the 'Pub ticket, to put out my objective two cents piece....

Still, it does seem like a strange argument to make, considering that Trump has already essentially maxed out his vote in "downstate" Oregon, and unless somehow he were to massively improve in the suburbs of Portland and Seattle, and Upper-Income precincts within both Cities, it is difficult to see how we could hypothetically move the needle in either State in his positive direction. It is precisely the suburbs of Portland and Seattle where Trump could potentially hit a much deeper floor in 2020, whereas in the WWC communities where he maxed the 'Pub numbers in 2016 were mainly W./Obama/Trump voters, with maybe a crossover to Kerry or Romney in '04/'12 mixed in....

Not seeing how the math would work there, maybe someone could explain?

[Nyvin]

Because the fastest-growing parts of those states are the most solidly Republican.

Of course, the big population centers (Portland, Seattle, etc.) are getting bluer in the age of Trump, so I doubt much will change anytime soon.  If anything, they will become MORE liberal.

What?

The parts that are heavily Republican in OR/WA are LOSING people...not fast growing.   What the heck are you talking about?

If they're fast growing like Seattle or Bend city,  they're trending dem fast.

[TJ in Oregon]

In an ordinary R vs D presidential election it's hard to see WA/OR making any large trends toward the Republicans (small ones are certainly possible: OR nearly did in 2016; but nowhere near enough to actually win).

However, if a Kasich/Hickenlooper third party run did happen, Oregon might be a plausible Trump pickup since the upscale suburban voters are largely Democratic to begin with. In this scenario, you'd see a progressive Dem winning Portland, Corvallis, Ashland, etc. and Kasich winning, or at least putting a large dent into Washington and Clackamas Counties. Such a map could allow Trump to squeeze through. Unlikely, but possible.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The Republicans can't win Oregon on the presidential level as long as they keep nominating Trump and Cruz like candidates. Kasich would've lost by maybe 4-5 points.

I say with Kasich, Oregon may flip cause he was leading by 8-10 points in the polls and Oregon is only 8-9 points more dem than the nation which means Oregon could flip with Kasich as nominee. If it was President Romney vs Hillary Oregon definitely flips as Romney wins nationally by 12 points vs Hillary

[Nyvin]

The Republicans can't win Oregon on the presidential level as long as they keep nominating Trump and Cruz like candidates. Kasich would've lost by maybe 4-5 points.

I say with Kasich, Oregon may flip cause he was leading by 8-10 points in the polls and Oregon is only 8-9 points more dem than the nation which means Oregon could flip with Kasich as nominee. If it was President Romney vs Hillary Oregon definitely flips as Romney wins nationally by 12 points vs Hillary

Kasich would never win a GOP primary.   Hillary vs Romney is just fantasy talk,  I could say Hillary would win Oregon by a bigger margin than Obama did and it'd have just as much credibility.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The Republicans can't win Oregon on the presidential level as long as they keep nominating Trump and Cruz like candidates. Kasich would've lost by maybe 4-5 points.

I say with Kasich, Oregon may flip cause he was leading by 8-10 points in the polls and Oregon is only 8-9 points more dem than the nation which means Oregon could flip with Kasich as nominee. If it was President Romney vs Hillary Oregon definitely flips as Romney wins nationally by 12 points vs Hillary

Kasich would never win a GOP primary.   Hillary vs Romney is just fantasy talk,  I could say Hillary would win Oregon by a bigger margin than Obama did and it'd have just as much credibility.

No Obama won by 4 points nationally  against Mitt and 12 points in Oregon, Kasich was leading by 8-10 points nationally and that means he nation is 12-14 point less democratic so if you do a uniform swing Oregon flips.


Now for Romney he would essiently have a record of the economy tremendously improving in his term , incumbency advantage, facing a scandalous opponent, and in my opinion Foriegn affairs would have been handled better meaning Romney wins at least by same margin Kasich was thus Oregon flips.