Are the Midwest and the Northeast slowly slipping away from the Democrats?

[The Arizonan]

Wisconsin and Pennsylvania seem to be trending Republican in general and Minnesota almost went Republican in 2016. Maine is more of a red state than it looks on the presidential election map.

[RINO Tom]

Nah.

[Mr. Smith]

Illinois trended even more D, Sanders in the primary and Johnson did a lot towards Minnesota, NH remained D despite the rest of its history. Massachusetts went more D too.

What's next, The Southwest is a lost cause for Republicans?

[Libertarian in Name Only]

Maybe very very very slowly. Every state except MA, MD, and IL trended Republican.

[Deblano]

If the GOP secularizes a bit more, then yes.

[RINO Tom]

Illinois trended even more D, Sanders in the primary and Johnson did a lot towards Minnesota, NH remained D despite the rest of its history. Massachusetts went more D too.

What's next, The Southwest is a lost cause for Republicans?

It is, hadn't you heard?  The Southwest and Sunbelt include areas now worthy of liberals' vacation weeks PLUS some people there have college degrees, so they HAVE to be trending D at a rapid rate.

[Xing]

Too soon to say the Midwest is, it might be (though Illinois certainly isn't.) The Northeast is definitely not in trouble for Democrats yet. Call me when New York in within single digits.

[Technocracy Timmy]

The Midwest is completely gone. It's time for Democrats to form a coalition of upper class voters by being fiscally conservative, use liberal social issues to win over latte liberals, and obviously minorities will always vote in lockstep to stop the racist republicans so we can just take them for granted.

It'll be so beautiful. All our billionaire buddies will love what we have created.

[Fight for Trump]

The Midwest is just slipping away in general. Sad to watch.

[RINO Tom]

The Midwest is just slipping away in general. Sad to watch.

We'll be fine, we're tough and hard working.

[Kingpoleon]

The Midwest is completely gone. It's time for Democrats to form a coalition of upper class voters by being fiscally conservative, use liberal social issues to win over latte liberals, and obviously minorities will always vote in lockstep to stop the racist republicans so we can just take them for granted.

It'll be so beautiful. All our billionaire buddies will love what we have created.

No!

Democrats need to accept the Northeast is a lost cause. Democrats must unite in a coalition of populism, both fiscally and socially. With white lower class voters and populist minorities, we can create an authoritarian populi- people's paradise! I know it sounds like it will destroy the economy, but ending free trade, hiking red tape and taxes, universal healthcare, free college, and trillions of dollars in infrastructure spending will CREATE JOBS, LOWER UNEMPLOYMENT, MAKE PRICES BETTER, AND LOWER INFLATION!!!

[TML]

We'll have to wait a few more election cycles to know for sure. Back in 2008, Obama won Indiana, but that state wasn't even competitive during the next two elections.

[MT Treasurer]

Midwest - Most states (except IL) probably are, at least in the long term. But PA and MN should still remain swing states.

Northeast - Maybe Maine and Rhode Island, but all the other states? Nah.

[White Trash]

Illinois trended even more D, Sanders in the primary and Johnson did a lot towards Minnesota, NH remained D despite the rest of its history. Massachusetts went more D too.

What's next, The Southwest is a lost cause for Republicans?

It is, hadn't you heard?  The Southwest and Sunbelt include areas now worthy of liberals' vacation weeks PLUS some people there have college degrees, so they HAVE to be trending D at a rapid rate.

Don't forget all those affluent white suburbs which have gone Republican again and again, but they'll vote Democrat eventually! Any day now!

[Mr. Smith]

Illinois trended even more D, Sanders in the primary and Johnson did a lot towards Minnesota, NH remained D despite the rest of its history. Massachusetts went more D too.

What's next, The Southwest is a lost cause for Republicans?

It is, hadn't you heard?  The Southwest and Sunbelt include areas now worthy of liberals' vacation weeks PLUS some people there have college degrees, so they HAVE to be trending D at a rapid rate.

Don't forget all those affluent white suburbs which have gone Republican again and again, but they'll vote Democrat eventually! Any day now!

To be fair, this DID happen on The Left Coast and The Northeast in the '80's and 90's.

[Technocracy Timmy]

The Midwest is completely gone. It's time for Democrats to form a coalition of upper class voters by being fiscally conservative, use liberal social issues to win over latte liberals, and obviously minorities will always vote in lockstep to stop the racist republicans so we can just take them for granted.

It'll be so beautiful. All our billionaire buddies will love what we have created.

No!

Democrats need to accept the Northeast is a lost cause. Democrats must unite in a coalition of populism, both fiscally and socially. With white lower class voters and populist minorities, we can create an authoritarian populi- people's paradise! I know it sounds like it will destroy the economy, but ending free trade, hiking red tape and taxes, universal healthcare, free college, and trillions of dollars in infrastructure spending will CREATE JOBS, LOWER UNEMPLOYMENT, MAKE PRICES BETTER, AND LOWER INFLATION!!!

Gross. Go vote for some Trumpism style nationalism if you want THAT kind of agenda.

I'll be here in my new yacht (courtesy of donating to the NEW AND IMPROVED sensible Democratic Party) smelling my own farts and reading Vox. Be gone pleb. You sound like a racist if I do say so myself.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Illinois trended even more D, Sanders in the primary and Johnson did a lot towards Minnesota, NH remained D despite the rest of its history. Massachusetts went more D too.

What's next, The Southwest is a lost cause for Republicans?

It is, hadn't you heard?  The Southwest and Sunbelt include areas now worthy of liberals' vacation weeks PLUS some people there have college degrees, so they HAVE to be trending D at a rapid rate.

Don't forget all those affluent white suburbs which have gone Republican again and again, but they'll vote Democrat eventually! Any day now!

That happened last year.

[RINO Tom]

Illinois trended even more D, Sanders in the primary and Johnson did a lot towards Minnesota, NH remained D despite the rest of its history. Massachusetts went more D too.

What's next, The Southwest is a lost cause for Republicans?

It is, hadn't you heard?  The Southwest and Sunbelt include areas now worthy of liberals' vacation weeks PLUS some people there have college degrees, so they HAVE to be trending D at a rapid rate.

Don't forget all those affluent white suburbs which have gone Republican again and again, but they'll vote Democrat eventually! Any day now!

That happened last year.

Not really.  Some did, but Trump won the suburban vote overall and his vote share increased DIRECTLY with a higher income.  Literally a direct correlation.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Illinois trended even more D, Sanders in the primary and Johnson did a lot towards Minnesota, NH remained D despite the rest of its history. Massachusetts went more D too.

What's next, The Southwest is a lost cause for Republicans?

It is, hadn't you heard?  The Southwest and Sunbelt include areas now worthy of liberals' vacation weeks PLUS some people there have college degrees, so they HAVE to be trending D at a rapid rate.

Don't forget all those affluent white suburbs which have gone Republican again and again, but they'll vote Democrat eventually! Any day now!

That happened last year.

Not really.  Some did, but Trump won the suburban vote overall and his vote share increased DIRECTLY with a higher income.  Literally a direct correlation.

And even if it did, one trend doesn't override long term trends.

Every Democratic President from Obama all the way back to FDR won by forming a coalition of religious, ethnic, racial, etc. minorities and working class whites.

[TDAS04]

Definitely not the Northeast.  In the near future--barring a Republican presidential landslide--the only states that the GOP will much of a chance in are Pennsylvania, Maine, and New Hampshire.

[Tekken_Guy]

The Midwest maybe, but not the Northeast.

[The Arizonan]

Definitely not the Northeast.  In the near future--barring a Republican presidential landslide--the only states that the GOP will much of a chance in are Pennsylvania, Maine, and New Hampshire.

I was pretty much talking about those three states, but it seems like in the very, very long run, the Northeast as a whole, or at least a noticeable chunk of it, is slipping away.

[Figueira]

Currently yes, whether that's a long term trend I'm not sure. Democrats should do everything they can to prevent it from being a long term trend though.

[NOVA Green]

No....

In the MidWest (By that my assumption is that your referring to the "Upper-Midwest", "Eastern Midwest", or as I quickly learned as a young man in Ohio "The Heartlands")....

2016 was simply more of a reversion to the means/norms if you roll back to George W. in '04 for example, and look at Obama's exceptional performance in '08/'12 as a variance....

Obama was the first MidWest Democratic candidate since Mondale back in '84. He extremely over-performed in rural counties throughout the region, as well as smaller mill towns and manufacturing communities throughout the region.

The question is less "Is the Midwest slowly slipping away from the Democrats", but rather, why in '16 were Democrats not able to capitalize and maximize their performance in small-town and rural areas, where Dukakis flipped counties that hadn't gone Democratic since '64?

Why hasn't a Democratic Presidential Candidate addressed farming related issues in a comprehensive manner since Dukakis?

Sure, one could well say, but really even in farming country, how many people are actually employed directly by the agricultural sector? The reality is that the economic impacts stretch well beyond the % of people directly employed by agriculture. We can also roll into Coal Country in Appalachia, and sawmill towns in Oregon and Maine, and see a similar phenomenon.

Now, it's pretty clear that Trump's win in Iowa and Ohio was directly a result of collapse of Democratic support in the Labor bastions and ancestral Democratic regions of the State.... Obviously, without the major swings in Macomb County Michigan, this would have been a 53-47 D state as a % of the 2-Party Vote....

Any autopsy involving the '16 election needs to systematically and methodically detailed, but it's pretty clear at the core that Trump was somehow able to recreate the W. '04 coalition, minus a decent number of upper-income voters, much lower share of Latinos and Asians, BUT was able to offset that with enough Obama '08 and/or Obama '12 voters in just the right places to push him that final foot into the endzone....

At a Presidential level, I do not believe that the region is slowly slipping away from Democrats.... This area has never been a Democratic majority stronghold, and is simply reverting back to the norms of being a swing region, with their own particular economic concerns that Democrats will ignore to their continued peril.

[jojoju1998]

No....

In the MidWest (By that my assumption is that your referring to the "Upper-Midwest", "Eastern Midwest", or as I quickly learned as a young man in Ohio "The Heartlands")....

2016 was simply more of a reversion to the means/norms if you roll back to George W. in '04 for example, and look at Obama's exceptional performance in '08/'12 as a variance....

Obama was the first MidWest Democratic candidate since Mondale back in '84. He extremely over-performed in rural counties throughout the region, as well as smaller mill towns and manufacturing communities throughout the region.

The question is less "Is the Midwest slowly slipping away from the Democrats", but rather, why in '16 were Democrats not able to capitalize and maximize their performance in small-town and rural areas, where Dukakis flipped counties that hadn't gone Democratic since '64?

Why hasn't a Democratic Presidential Candidate addressed farming related issues in a comprehensive manner since Dukakis?

Sure, one could well say, but really even in farming country, how many people are actually employed directly by the agricultural sector? The reality is that the economic impacts stretch well beyond the % of people directly employed by agriculture. We can also roll into Coal Country in Appalachia, and sawmill towns in Oregon and Maine, and see a similar phenomenon.

Now, it's pretty clear that Trump's win in Iowa and Ohio was directly a result of collapse of Democratic support in the Labor bastions and ancestral Democratic regions of the State.... Obviously, without the major swings in Macomb County Michigan, this would have been a 53-47 D state as a % of the 2-Party Vote....

Any autopsy involving the '16 election needs to systematically and methodically detailed, but it's pretty clear at the core that Trump was somehow able to recreate the W. '04 coalition, minus a decent number of upper-income voters, much lower share of Latinos and Asians, BUT was able to offset that with enough Obama '08 and/or Obama '12 voters in just the right places to push him that final foot into the endzone....

At a Presidential level, I do not believe that the region is slowly slipping away from Democrats.... This area has never been a Democratic majority stronghold, and is simply reverting back to the norms of being a swing region, with their own particular economic concerns that Democrats will ignore to their continued peril.

I don't think the Democrats will ignore the Rust Belt anytime soon. If anything, Tom Perez will most likely be forced out by the Bernie Sanders People after 2020. And finally, they will abandon Clinton NeoLiberalism.