Democrats only: What's your preferred map?

[Dr. MB]

Neither of these are supposed to be completely plausible, by the way.

Option 1: Sun Belt Strategy

The Democrats take advantage of rising minority populations and go for Texas, Georgia, Florida, Arizona, and the Carolinas, managing to win all those areas, but in the process largely abandon the midwest and parts of the northeast to the Republicans. Illinois and Rhode Island become tossups. The Democrats take a liberal position on social issues and a centrist one on economics, echoing Bill Clinton's presidency.

Option 2: White Working Class Strategy
The Democrats focus their efforts on winning back the midwest, and it is successful, making Missouri, Montana, and Indiana tossups once again, and bringing Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, and Pennsylvania to Lean D. However, the south becomes even more Republican and Virginia and Florida revert to Lean R. Kentucky and West Virginia move to Lean R. Alaska also comes into play. The Democrats become socially moderate and focus less efforts on guns and immigration, but take further-left positions on economics than currently.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

I find the second map more visually appealing, I'm undecided on which strategy I'd rather pursue though.

[junior chįmp]

The first one. Texas needs to come back to where she belongs. Home of LBJ and Anne Richards

[darklordoftech]

The second one. The first one is too elitist and too anti-gun.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

The second one. The first one is too elitist and too anti-gun.

I sort of agree with this.

[The Govanah Jake]

I would of course course choose the latter since i want a left economics democratic party but i disagree with the maps per say. Assuming both of these are future strategy's, minority's in the South for the second map would still support left economics as before unless other factors change. Black voters in the south and Hispanic voters in the southwest are more socially conservative then there urban west and east coast counterparts and so i think they would be a good fit in the second strategy democratic party. So coming into the future as more and more of this southern states continue to grow into minority majority states as there Black and Hispanic populations grow, i think they would still become more competitive for democrats too win unless there is a massive increase in wealth production for these groups or a full on socially liberal republican party (pretty unlikely considering the party would still want to win evangelicals if they are winning the Souths) which would not bold well in the southern rural areas (and thus make it impossible in the upper south) and would play better in the the Northern suburban areas (along with, to be fair the southern suburban areas like in Atlanta). These southern rural minority's are also some of the poorest in the country and a traditionalist left wing democratic party could play well here. Places like Mississippi, were the population of Blacks and Hispanics is already more then 40% combined and growing, could fit in here along with poor whites. The same goes for Louisiana, North Carolina, and to a lesser extent Alabama and Georgia. Now take the same things but with Hispanics. Poor Hispanics could still flock  to that democratic party in the Southwest and would not necessarily be a killer in Texas and Arizona where a poor Hispanic-White coalition could form. Florida is a special case as its Hispanic population is more affluent then others and there Hispanic population more republican. Though i doubt the state would be lean R if the Republicans took a hit among working class whites as the map shows. Finally in Virginia, i doubt it would be a Lean R state while more friendlier moderate republican states like in the Northeast and West are Democratic. Minority populations by the time would probably make the state minority-majority however its situation as a wealthier and more suburban state, even among these minority's could make for a interesting dynamic. Democrats could make gains in Appalachia while Republicans make gains in the Southeast and the NoVa. However that's only if the Republican Party is socially liberal to centrist and economically centrist (due to NoVa's government jobs situation) which would be very hard to do while maintaining the rest of the south. They would also lose heavily in Appalachia and the poor black population would still probably vote democrat and would still be growing in population in the state. At best i would make it a tossup. For the republicans to win in the scenario i would replace there losses in the south due to poor whites and minority's with gains among wealthier minority's and continued success among wealthier whites while maintaining a socially liberal and economically conservative to moderate position. Thus allowing them to win more west coast states and advance into the Northeast and take the Midwestern suburbs and rural areas to win there (assuming the continued decline of unions continue)

Meanwhile for the first one, i strongly agree that its a horrible direction the party should take. Abandoning a large group of voters (working class whites, who also helped start the party in the first place) for a potentially bigger one is a bad idea to start with. Appealing to both (minority working class/poor types and white working class/poor types) is a better type. For the map i assume that republican party is mostly Trumpist is nature. If so, like in the previous map as the minority groups in states like Mississippi and Louisiana grow, the more likely it is (if the democrat still wins those groups by big margins) for them to win the state. Mississippi is the most likely of these to flip. However winning any gain among working class whites it would be much harder in these states then in option 2 as a permanent racial electoral conflict in each state would both be very ugly and ensure tight wins for republicans most of the time. One other flip that i may add to the first one long term could be Vermont. Although very liberal in nature, a more Trumpist  (and thus more socially moderate) party that could focus on more economic grounds that could resonate somewhat in the state in say Minnesota.

Overall i think unfortunately Option 1 could ensure greater democratic party dominance for longer due to the unelectability of a trumpist republican party in the future (i mean besides Illinois, New York, and possibly Florida, without the big states like Texas or Georgia it would be very hard to win). However i think Option 2 could maintain a healthier coalition and would be much less divisive for America then Option 1

[beaver2.0]

Second.