Political Trends where you disagree with the Atlas Consensus

[PoliticalJunkie23]

-Generation Z will be conservative (relative to millenials? Maybe, but not conservative as a whole)

Why would the most diverse generation in history, having their political awakening during the Age of Trump, be more conservative?

Generation Z will be just as liberal as millennials.

No they won't. Gen Z is very diverse, and I suspect that it will be very racially polarized, with whites going for hard for the GOP and minorities going hard for Dems. Gen Z will still lean liberal, but I can  guarantee they'll be more conservative than millennials.

[jamestroll]

May not necessarily be a huge disagreement but I often wonder the rationale for Atlas by and large saying Illinois will be a SOLID Republican state in the future.

[Skill and Chance]

Florida will drift right politically due to Republican block voting by the growing retiree population.  This will more than cancel out the state's demographic diversification.  It will be considered a Likely R state by 2030.

Arizona will flip in 2020 unless Trump wins the PV by >2.

Republicans have peaked in Oklahoma.  Obviously Democrats won't be winning it anytime soon, as 57% is as good as 67%, but Republican margins in statewide races will slowly decline going forward.

Democrats have peaked in Illinois and New York.  Chicago's population loss will only get worse and Upstate NY will be much more of a Republican block vote like it was in the mid 20th century.

Republicans will maintain a hard 43-46% base in Virginia indefinitely.  It will not turn into a Dem blowout like Maryland.

Not sure if this is a consensus here or not, but GA will flip for Dems before NC flips back to them.

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

Florida will trend D because of the Republicans' constant struggle to take away benefits for older people, immigrants, and their new protectionist policies. This alienates old people, young people (young Cuban-Americans have turned sharply D since 2008, and Puerto Ricans are flooding into the state given the commonwealth's recent troubles), and free trader conservatives.

[RINO Tom]

Florida will trend D because of the Republicans' constant struggle to take away benefits for older people, immigrants, and their new protectionist policies. This alienates old people, young people (young Cuban-Americans have turned sharply D since 2008, and Puerto Ricans are flooding into the state given the commonwealth's recent troubles), and free trader conservatives.

It remains to be seen if your first claim will "last."  Trump can talk all he want, but the fact is that the "free trader conservatives" vastly outnumber the protectionists among elected Republicans, even in the age of Trump.

[dw93]

-Generation Z will be conservative (relative to millenials? Maybe, but not conservative as a whole)

Why would the most diverse generation in history, having their political awakening during the Age of Trump, be more conservative?

Generation Z will be just as liberal as millennials.

No they won't. Gen Z is very diverse, and I suspect that it will be very racially polarized, with whites going for hard for the GOP and minorities going hard for Dems. Gen Z will still lean liberal, but I can  guarantee they'll be more conservative than millennials.

I would agree with you if Hillary won last year's election. The GOP would've had a perfect opportunity to make inroads with Gen Z, especially white Gen Zrs, but because Trump won, I think he'll hurt the Republicans with Gen Z more than Bush 43 did with Millennials. Gen Z will probably be to the right of Millennials when it comes to things like "Safe Spaces" but that's about it.

[Person Man]

Florida will trend D because of the Republicans' constant struggle to take away benefits for older people, immigrants, and their new protectionist policies. This alienates old people, young people (young Cuban-Americans have turned sharply D since 2008, and Puerto Ricans are flooding into the state given the commonwealth's recent troubles), and free trader conservatives.

Although who knows how much a potential cancellation of Old Age benefits would have in Florida. For all we know, the people who move to Florida when they are old don't need those benefits or perhaps would make more money under some sort of compulsory savings scheme. Incomes are low in Florida, though so who knows.

[bagelman]

Ohio will be a solid R state after 2016, eventually joining the ranks of Tennessee and Kansas.

[dw93]

Ohio will be a solid R state after 2016, eventually joining the ranks of Tennessee and Kansas.

I agree. People said after 2008 and 2012 that Iowa wouldn't go Republican again and Trump won it by around the same margin Obama won it in 2008. Ohio and Iowa both could swing back to the Dems if Trump will does bad enough.

[RINO Tom]

Ohio will be a solid R state after 2016, eventually joining the ranks of Tennessee and Kansas.

The Ohio reaction is truly strange.  Trump did as well as a generic Republican with the state's traditional Republican base (suburban voters, rural voters in the Northern part of the state, the affluent, etc.) while also doing WAY better among "White Working Class" voters than the average Republican would have ... it combined for a "perfect storm" and a MOV that is not likely to be repeated that often.  I think Ohio will remain a Lean R swing state (which is honestly what I think it was pre-Trump with Obama being a great fit).

[PragmaticPopulist]

Ohio will be a solid R state after 2016, eventually joining the ranks of Tennessee and Kansas.

The Ohio reaction is truly strange.  Trump did as well as a generic Republican with the state's traditional Republican base (suburban voters, rural voters in the Northern part of the state, the affluent, etc.) while also doing WAY better among "White Working Class" voters than the average Republican would have ... it combined for a "perfect storm" and a MOV that is not likely to be repeated that often.  I think Ohio will remain a Lean R swing state (which is honestly what I think it was pre-Trump with Obama being a great fit).

I agree that it's too early to say that Ohio and Iowa are becoming safe R states, though the margin that Trump won Ohio by is unusual. It could be that there were an unusual amount of Obama-Trump voters there, or simply that Democratic turnout was down. 2018 might give us a sense of the overall lean of Ohio.

Iowa is in a bit of a different situation. Not only is it more elastic than Ohio (Obama won it by 9% in 2008), but Trump got about 22,000 less votes than Obama in 2012.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Florida will trend D because of the Republicans' constant struggle to take away benefits for older people, immigrants, and their new protectionist policies. This alienates old people, young people (young Cuban-Americans have turned sharply D since 2008, and Puerto Ricans are flooding into the state given the commonwealth's recent troubles), and free trader conservatives.

It remains to be seen if your first claim will "last."  Trump can talk all he want, but the fact is that the "free trader conservatives" vastly outnumber the protectionists among elected Republicans, even in the age of Trump.

Elected seems to be the key word here. The base of the republican party is not pro free trade anymore.

[Skill and Chance]

Florida will trend D because of the Republicans' constant struggle to take away benefits for older people, immigrants, and their new protectionist policies. This alienates old people, young people (young Cuban-Americans have turned sharply D since 2008, and Puerto Ricans are flooding into the state given the commonwealth's recent troubles), and free trader conservatives.

Although who knows how much a potential cancellation of Old Age benefits would have in Florida. For all we know, the people who move to Florida when they are old don't need those benefits or perhaps would make more money under some sort of compulsory savings scheme. Incomes are low in Florida, though so who knows.

Elderly people who can afford to move to retirement communities in Florida generally have personal wealth that dwarfs their SS benefits.  Someone with a $1M+ 401k/IRA would gladly trade SS cuts for lower income tax rates on their withdrawals. The elderly who are living exclusively off SS generally stayed in their hometowns and/or moved in with their adult children.

What would kill a political party with the Florida elderly would be passing a federal sales tax or VAT. 

[Skill and Chance]

I'm envisioning something like this where New England and the Deep South rapidly get more competitive.  Florida may eventually fill the role of today's Texas as the one GOP big state:

[RINO Tom]

Florida will trend D because of the Republicans' constant struggle to take away benefits for older people, immigrants, and their new protectionist policies. This alienates old people, young people (young Cuban-Americans have turned sharply D since 2008, and Puerto Ricans are flooding into the state given the commonwealth's recent troubles), and free trader conservatives.

It remains to be seen if your first claim will "last."  Trump can talk all he want, but the fact is that the "free trader conservatives" vastly outnumber the protectionists among elected Republicans, even in the age of Trump.

Elected seems to be the key word here. The base of the republican party is not pro free trade anymore.

How do you know the GOP base ever was?  Also, it's at the VERY most equally as protectionist as the Democratic base, right?

[Skill and Chance]

Florida will trend D because of the Republicans' constant struggle to take away benefits for older people, immigrants, and their new protectionist policies. This alienates old people, young people (young Cuban-Americans have turned sharply D since 2008, and Puerto Ricans are flooding into the state given the commonwealth's recent troubles), and free trader conservatives.

It remains to be seen if your first claim will "last."  Trump can talk all he want, but the fact is that the "free trader conservatives" vastly outnumber the protectionists among elected Republicans, even in the age of Trump.

Elected seems to be the key word here. The base of the republican party is not pro free trade anymore.

How do you know the GOP base ever was?  Also, it's at the VERY most equally as protectionist as the Democratic base, right?

You have to admit there's been a real shift on protectionism, though.  Even if it's the same old divide on tax cuts and most of the Romney-Clinton voters stay R downballot, there has been a real influx of (mainly) rural voters who frown on free trade into the GOP.  The Dems have gotten somewhat less protectionist as well, and it predates Trump for them- started with Obama courting the metropolitan $100K+ demographic in the 2008 primary.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Florida will trend D because of the Republicans' constant struggle to take away benefits for older people, immigrants, and their new protectionist policies. This alienates old people, young people (young Cuban-Americans have turned sharply D since 2008, and Puerto Ricans are flooding into the state given the commonwealth's recent troubles), and free trader conservatives.

It remains to be seen if your first claim will "last."  Trump can talk all he want, but the fact is that the "free trader conservatives" vastly outnumber the protectionists among elected Republicans, even in the age of Trump.

Elected seems to be the key word here. The base of the republican party is not pro free trade anymore.

How do you know the GOP base ever was?  Also, it's at the VERY most equally as protectionist as the Democratic base, right?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/25/support-for-free-trade-agreements-rebounds-modestly-but-wide-partisan-differences-remain/. Not anymore. The republican base is not more pro free trade than democrats now.

[RINO Tom]

Florida will trend D because of the Republicans' constant struggle to take away benefits for older people, immigrants, and their new protectionist policies. This alienates old people, young people (young Cuban-Americans have turned sharply D since 2008, and Puerto Ricans are flooding into the state given the commonwealth's recent troubles), and free trader conservatives.

It remains to be seen if your first claim will "last."  Trump can talk all he want, but the fact is that the "free trader conservatives" vastly outnumber the protectionists among elected Republicans, even in the age of Trump.

Elected seems to be the key word here. The base of the republican party is not pro free trade anymore.

How do you know the GOP base ever was?  Also, it's at the VERY most equally as protectionist as the Democratic base, right?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/25/support-for-free-trade-agreements-rebounds-modestly-but-wide-partisan-differences-remain/. Not anymore. The republican base is not more pro free trade than democrats now.

I know you can read, I said the Democratic BASE.

[jamestroll]

Can someone explain to me why this site largely believes Illinois will trend heavily Republican?

[Person Man]

Can someone explain to me why this site largely believes Illinois will trend heavily Republican?

Because they have a Republican Governor and had a Republican Senator. Further, all the states around Illinois went red last year. In 2012, 3(Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan (shares a littoral border))  of them went blue. In 2008, 4 (Indiana) and almost 5 (Missouri) went blue. Chicago is losing people, or at least not getting many more. Then again, I don't think downstate is doing too well demographically, either.

So Illinois eventually becoming at least Pyrite for Republicans (maybe the median 2-party voter would still not consider voting Republican, but maybe the 47th or 48th %er would)  at the Presidential Level fits a narrative.  Then again, Bush got within like 9 or 10 in 2004 though he won by almost 3 points nationally.

[RINO Tom]

Can someone explain to me why this site largely believes Illinois will trend heavily Republican?

I don't think that many people do...?  However, I would chalk it up to these two things:

1) This site is full of political nerds who study elections like 1896, 1932 and 1968 and subconsiously REALLY want to be observing some type of realignment; this causes them to engage in some wishful thinking in their predictions and try to come up with scenarios where we see huge shifts of regions ala the South becoming Republican in the late 20th Century, even though there is simply no compelling reason to believe that wasn't a unique scenario that won't be repeated to that scale.  Illinois becoming Republican is part of this way overhyped "Northern Strategy/Sunbelt Strategy" realignment where the GOP adapts to losing Texas and the like by making gains in the North, including Illinois.

2) People envision Chicago's population loss moving it in a more Republican-friendly direction.  Only 13 Illinois counties experienced growth between 2015 and 2016, and 10 of the 13 voted for Trump:

1. Kendall (Chicago suburbs)
2. Piatt (part of the Champaign metro)
3. Monroe (part of Metro East St. Louis suburbs)
4. Johnson (small town Southern Illinois)
5. Menard (part of Springfield metro)
6. Will (Chicago suburbs)
7. Kane (Chicago suburbs)
8. Champaign (University of Illinois)
9. Stark (part of Peoria metro)
10. Jefferson (Mount Vernon, Southern Illinois)
11. Edwards (small town Southern Illinois)
12. Boone (part of Rockford metro)
13. Cumberland (outside of Charleston)

The only two with growth over 1.00% were Kendall and Piatt, and they both went to Trump.  Will and Kane were relatively close and, IMO, probably would have voted for a different Republican.  None of this is to say that IL is going to move in the GOP's direction, but it is hardly following the Georgia model of its faster growing areas being the more Democratic ones.

[SamTilden2020]

Because they have a Republican Governor and had a Republican Senator. Further, all the states around Illinois went red last year. In 2012, 3(Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan (shares a littoral border))  of them went blue. In 2008, 4 (Indiana) and almost 5 (Missouri) went blue. Chicago is losing people, or at least not getting many more. Then again, I don't think downstate is doing too well demographically, either.

So Illinois eventually becoming at least Pyrite for Republicans (maybe the median 2-party voter would still not consider voting Republican, but maybe the 47th or 48th %er would)  at the Presidential Level fits a narrative.  Then again, Bush got within like 9 or 10 in 2004 though he won by almost 3 points nationally.

On the first part: Kirk's 2010 win arguably had a perfect storm of factors (Lower midterm Dem turnout, 2010 being a good year for GOP, Blagojevich's corruption still fresh in everyone's mind, Giannoulias being an awful candidate), and Governors races in general tend to be a bit more elastic than their national races suggest (Lingle comes to mind).

On the second paragraph, Bush did awfully well in strongly-DEM areas (10 point loss CA, 9 point loss in HI) in 2004.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Florida will trend D because of the Republicans' constant struggle to take away benefits for older people, immigrants, and their new protectionist policies. This alienates old people, young people (young Cuban-Americans have turned sharply D since 2008, and Puerto Ricans are flooding into the state given the commonwealth's recent troubles), and free trader conservatives.

It remains to be seen if your first claim will "last."  Trump can talk all he want, but the fact is that the "free trader conservatives" vastly outnumber the protectionists among elected Republicans, even in the age of Trump.

Elected seems to be the key word here. The base of the republican party is not pro free trade anymore.

How do you know the GOP base ever was?  Also, it's at the VERY most equally as protectionist as the Democratic base, right?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/25/support-for-free-trade-agreements-rebounds-modestly-but-wide-partisan-differences-remain/. Not anymore. The republican base is not more pro free trade than democrats now.

I know you can read, I said the Democratic BASE.

What?

[RINO Tom]

Florida will trend D because of the Republicans' constant struggle to take away benefits for older people, immigrants, and their new protectionist policies. This alienates old people, young people (young Cuban-Americans have turned sharply D since 2008, and Puerto Ricans are flooding into the state given the commonwealth's recent troubles), and free trader conservatives.

It remains to be seen if your first claim will "last."  Trump can talk all he want, but the fact is that the "free trader conservatives" vastly outnumber the protectionists among elected Republicans, even in the age of Trump.

Elected seems to be the key word here. The base of the republican party is not pro free trade anymore.

How do you know the GOP base ever was?  Also, it's at the VERY most equally as protectionist as the Democratic base, right?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/25/support-for-free-trade-agreements-rebounds-modestly-but-wide-partisan-differences-remain/. Not anymore. The republican base is not more pro free trade than democrats now.

I know you can read, I said the Democratic BASE.

What?

Articulate what confused you.

[Deblano]

Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin IMO are likely to remain swing-states or light blue states after Trump, rather than sharply trend GOP.

The main reason they went red in 2016 is because Trump campaigned himself as a tough, reformist negotiator who would bring back jobs outsourced by free trade. Since that image has gradually weakened under the White House, those states are not really likely to have their hearts won by the GOP and sharply turn red like the Deep South.