Have Republicans reached their ceiling in rural areas?

[Snipee356]

Excluding the Northeast, Trump racked up 70-80% of the vote in rural areas. It seems almost impossible for Reps to sway any more voters in these areas.

Any slump/stagnation in rural vote would spell disaster for Republicans until the next realignment, given demographic trends and the swings in suburbs seen in the midterms.

[lfromnj]

Only in certain areas like Texas basically. The percentage might go higher but at max its like 150k votes to squeeze out while the suburbs are about to burb stomp.

[Grassroots]

Not really. They will continue to climb for as long as democrats keep blowing off the warmer and blue collar family.

[IceSpear]

Probably not.  Never assume a ceiling has been reached.

[Technocracy Timmy]

In the Deep South? Mostly yes.

Everywhere else? F*** no.

[Chinggis]

Maybe in 20 years, we'll see a sea of >90% Republican rural counties across the nation, with islands of >70%-90% Democratic metro areas. Might make for some aesthetic maps, actually.

[CookieDamage]

Maybe in 20 years, we'll see a sea of >90% Republican rural counties across the nation, with islands of >70%-90% Democratic metro areas. Might make for some aesthetic maps, actually.

And a hugely polarized country along racial, economic, and urban/suburban/rural divides.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Probably not.  Never assume a ceiling has been reached.

Yeah we all seemed to think that already happened in 2012.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Democrats thought that Obama 2012 bottomed out the support for Democrats from white males, and people in Appalachia. They were wrong, of course.

[Holmes]

Democrats thought that Obama 2012 bottomed out the support for Democrats from white males, and people in Appalachia. They were wrong, of course.

Yes, we know, hence the thread asking if the ceiling has been reached in 2018.

[ElectionsGuy]

In the Deep South? Mostly yes.

Everywhere else? F*** no.

Agree. I think there are some non-south exceptions, like the Great Plains (KS, NE particularly) and some mountain west states like Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah. But elsewhere, especially in upper midwest, Republicans could still gain a lot.

[Podgy the Bear]

No--the ceiling can continue to climb.  For all the hard work and publicity, the voter turnout for the midterm election was 49%.  That means that more than half the voting population is still out to lunch.  And a considerable chunk of these potential voters will be in Republican friendly territory.

[Technocracy Timmy]

In the Deep South? Mostly yes.

Everywhere else? F*** no.

Agree. I think there are some non-south exceptions, like the Great Plains (KS, NE particularly) and some mountain west states like Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah. But elsewhere, especially in upper midwest, Republicans could still gain a lot.

That’s true. I forgot about all those 90% rural Trump counties in the Plains. They’re probably not getting any redder.

[SN2903]

No Democrats are moving more and more away from rural values. Hillary will look like a moderate compared to 2020.

[Cashew]

West of the Mississippi and the South yes, but theres still room to grow in the Midwest and Northeast, especially Maine and Minnesota.

[Skill and Chance]

Only in certain areas like Texas basically. The percentage might go higher but at max its like 150k votes to squeeze out while the suburbs are about to burb stomp.

This.  West Texas is the future for much the rural Midwest and Appalachia and the parts of the rural South with low minority populations. 

For 2020 specifically, I think they can get enough of a bounce to win back the Midwest with a better candidate for that region than Clinton, but if it happens, it will be a short term thing based on the economy weakening between now and then. 

[Technocracy Timmy]

No. The rural areas in MN, WI, IA, and MI are a disaster waiting to happen. If they start voting like southern whites, those states are gonna bring a lot of heartburn

Yeah I suspect that these voters will get even redder in 2020 with Ohio going R by double digits. I have no faith in rural-suburban non-college educated older white voters to NOT swing even more Republican with their God Emperor on the ballot again.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

This.  West Texas is the future for much the rural Midwest and Appalachia and the parts of the rural South with low minority populations. 

Precisely. Over the next couple of election cycles, Rs in places like rural Ohio and Iowa are going to go skirting towards the point where 90-99% of the rural white population votes R. That is the point where you start to bottom out, because it starts to become mathematically impossible to increase any more. It is relatively easy to increase from 70% of rural whites to 71% of rural whites, because you only have to win over 1 out of every 30 remaining Dem rural whites to do that. But once you get up to, say, 98% of the rural white population voting R, you have to win over 1 out of every 2 remaining Dem rural whites to do that. If you look at precinct results of the 2016 election, even in states like Michigan there are rural precincts starting to approach that limit. The rest will follow shortly.

In rural areas with a bit higher of a non-white population, the countywide GOP %s will end up at a bit less than 90-95%, depending on how large the non-white population is and how much it votes Dem. Those places will end up looking more like East TX, where the GOP vote may only be something like 80% if there is a 15-20% black population or something like that.

Eventually you start to reach the point, like in West TX, where the swings in election results from election to election are basically entirely a function of changes in minority turnout and demographic growth/decline.

[pbrower2a]

The rural areas are either losing population, becoming non-rural (typically suburban) if they are growing at the urban fringe, or changing in demographics (as Hispanics move in to do the farm labor).  Rural areas might become more Republican in places as they hemorrhage population, but that is one way of maxing out.

The rural population shrinks as well-educated kids take their degrees  to 'town' -- and do not return until they are of retirement age. Republicans get a increasing share of a declining population while other parts of America become less Republican and actually grow. Voters in 2018 were by a bare majority (51%, which is as bare a majority as is possible) suburban.

If you are running in a statewide race, are you better off getting 80% of the vote in a county of 10,000 voters  or 70% if a county of 20,000 voters if it is the same county? The first margin is 6K; the second margin is 8K, and 2K could be the difference in a really-close election. That is how some counties have gone over 50 years. Politicians do not have the responsibility to keep a population from moving away.

[Adam Griffin]

See below for the answer:

Pretty self-explanatory:

(The map below uses 3-point thresholds instead of the usual 5-point Atlas swing thresholds. To see what this map would look like with standard Atlas swing, click here)

Abrams-Clinton Swing (2016-2018)

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

No. The rural areas in MN, WI, IA, and MI are a disaster waiting to happen. If they start voting like southern whites, those states are gonna bring a lot of heartburn

Yeah I suspect that these voters will get even redder in 2020 with Ohio going R by double digits. I have no faith in rural-suburban non-college educated older white voters to NOT swing even more Republican with their God Emperor on the ballot again.

I would say PA's rurals are maxed out, but the other four you mentioned could certainly get redder.