When and why will rural people stop trending Republican?

[GlobeSoc]

I personally think options 1,5,6,8, and 10, as per my interpretation of the Cordray theory.

[Unironic Kamala Harris for President Supporter]

Never.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Never.

That's literally impossible.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Never.

That's literally impossible.

In that case there should be a "100% of rural people have become Republicans" option.

[AN63093]

Typo?

Your second map is the same as scenario 1....

[AN63093]

Anyways, back to the topic, the OP needs to be more specific.  Are you just talking about rural whites?  It's not very precise to just say "rural people," because you have rural blacks in the Deep South, rural hispanics in NM, etc.  Different rural areas are going to probably trend different ways.

Now if you mean the stereotypical rural white person that you've imagined in your mind, which is what I suspect you mean, then here's the analysis:

First, options 2/3 aren't going to happen (rural people/country stops existing).  Options 4/5 (Dems change) may occur, but that won't trend back rural areas by itself, because option 1 is false (i.e. rural areas will become economically left).

If this was 100 years ago, then that would be a possibility, but the makeup of rural America has substantially changed since then.  The stereotypical "family farmer" out on his "frontier homestead" like something out of The Wizard of Oz, is practically non-existent these days.  Most people in rural areas are either working in agri-business in large corporate farms, oil/gas industry, ranching, or are cluttered around smaller towns in the service industry (e.g., retail workers at the local Wal-Mart, etc.).  There are also industrial workers, such as in meat-packing plants, that are mostly poorer Hispanics.  For example, Tyson has a lot of these throughout the plains states.

Of the latter category, turnout isn't high enough (nor are the numbers concentrated enough) to make a big enough difference.  Of the former categories, these are all very R constituencies, for a variety of reasons.  They are economically conservative, but not necessarily on every issue (e.g., farm subsidies being a good counter example), and are also very individualistic and culturally conservative (so options 4/5, Dems shifting populist, wouldn't be enough).

Option 6 (rural voters become less conservative) probably won't happen, but even if it did, the GOP would still probably win large amounts of rural areas.  Even if there was a realignment and the GOP was focused on New England/Northeast, the GOP would still be winning most interior West areas (see basically every pre-New Deal election for examples of this).

Option 7 won't happen (GOP collapses); that is mostly just a Dem fantasy.

I agree with Skill&Chance, that Option 8 is the only option that would actually do it (GOP becomes less rural focused).  I could see that happening if we got a combination of two things: a) polarization based on racial stratification in the parties becomes worse, and certain rural areas become heavily Hispanic (and their turnout increases); b) other rural areas become so de-populated (e.g., due to complete automation of large corporate farms), that the GOP is forced to focus more on urban areas.

As to when this will happen, not before the 2030s at the earliest.  If there was an "after 2030" option I would've voted that.  But since there wasn't, I voted 2030s and option 8 (GOP is less rural focused).

[AN63093]

Typo?

Your second map is the same as scenario 1....

Corrected.

Cool.

I think your first scenario is more likely, though the second one would be a fun election to watch.

By the way, your first scenario is eerily similar to one of my scenarios for a long term trend as well (scenario 2 in this link).

[PoliticalShelter]

When the GOP decides that going after urban and inner suburban areas has more electoral award than trying to max out rural turnout.
Which will probably quite soon anymore rural votes that the republican gets at this point are basically wasted at this point and will end up leading to them getting packed like democrats and urban areas (this is for downballot elections).

[PragmaticPopulist]

I voted When Democrats become more left-wing populist. I did it based on this I read a while back:
http://prospect.org/article/winning-some-middle-road-working-class-whites

There's been a perception that Democrats don't care about rural whites. The only ways this perception will die is either with older generations dying off, or if Democrats can convince rural voters that they're on their side.

[progressive85]

As rural areas become more diverse - the cities can only contain so many people - and rural areas may become a refuge away from the coasts if the impacts from climate change are very severe.

A Depression under a very unpopular Republican President, a falling out of economic conservatism by young rural voters, and a strong Democratic candidate running to revive the collapsed economies of rural areas could certainly stop the trend.

[Sumner 1868]

They've already hit the maximum out there.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

I think that the GOP has more or less maxed-out their support in most rural areas. I mean, they're already getting over 90% of the vote in some rural counties in the Mountain west and Great Plains states.

[erſatz-york]

I think that the GOP has more or less maxed-out their support in most rural areas. I mean, they're already getting over 90% of the vote in some rural counties in the Mountain west and Great Plains states.

Definitely true, but there are still gains to be made in places like the NE and the Iron Range.

These areas moved towards the GOP in 2016 because Trump was perceived as being both secular and an economic populist, whereas voters in these regions had previously perceived the GOP to be the party of the rich or the religious right (or both).

I think the association with the religious right was the primary negative factor in the socially liberal NE, whereas the perception of the GOP as being the party of the wealthy was the more important negative factor in the Iron Range (and all across the Rust Belt)

In the medium-long term, I think the GOP can begin to make gains in one of these areas but not the other. It depends, I think, on whether the GOP trends more heavily towards secular cultural conservatism (fighting the liberal/media elites/SJWs, silent majority politics, but not necessarily tied to the religious right) or more heavily towards economic populism (mainly protectionism).

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

Likely when R's max out.