Idaho and Wyoming

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

What do you believe will happen politically in these two states in the future? I've heard analyses that make these out to be the next Vermont (deep R state turns D over time) or that they'll stay Republican for decades to come.

[Virginiá]

I don't see how. The most action Democrats have seen in these two states was from the New Deal era, and that's about it. For Democrats to even make these states competitive would require a sea change among certain groups of white voters - one that doesn't look likely anytime soon.

[erſatz-york]

The Democratic Party's economic prescriptions would be toxic to the economies of these states and the people there know it.

Do you think coal mining companies and their employees want crushing regulations imposed upon them?

Would ranchers and grazers want the federal government to retain or expand the land area under its control?

Even if the renewable energy sector (wind) expands in these states, these states still aren't going to swing D because the GOP's agenda doesn't explicitly go after wind power in the same way that the Dems go after coal.

In any case, the GOP are the ones promising to increase the amount of land available to ranchers and grazers. As long as that remains true, I cannot see the GOP losing these states.

[Skill and Chance]

Wyoming is simply impossible due to how rural it is and how large the coal mining presence is.  They would have to completely flip on the environment and then some.

Idaho, on the other hand, could be a long run opportunity if Trump eventually causes Mormons to abandon the GOP for good.  They have switched sides very abruptly in the past, after all.  I also think there is some opportunity for GA-06/VA-10 style Dem growth in Boise and its suburbs.

[Senator-elect Spark]

WY will be R for the next 100 years and Idaho can trend D if there is growth in the Boise suburbs.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Since when does "population growth in suburbs" equate to a strong Democratic trend, especially in a state like IDAHO? Both states are Safe R, and there is no indication that this will change any time soon, barring some weird migration patterns.

After 2006 and 2008, many people predicted that Montana would become the next Colorado/Oregon/Vermont/etc. How did that turn out again?

Texas will become the next California.

[RI]

Even if Mormons became hard D, these states wouldn't flip.

[Xing]

Wyoming is as Republican as they come. Idaho might get a little more Democratic in the future, but nowhere near enough for it to become competitive at the federal level.

[Mr. Smith]

Not happening.

Could've happened if the Dems had invested more back in the 60's and '70's (and done more to coalesce around Frank Church before Teh Jimmeh could pull of a dark horse victory), but they decided to chase The South instead, for better or worse.

It's telling how The Dems haven't really nominated someone of that kind of area since George McGovern despite having like 5 times to do it.

And besides Michael Dukakis, little has been tried to get those areas since.

[The Ex-Factor]

My understanding is that conservative transplants from other states are moving to these states:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Redoubt

[TDAS04]

They'll both remain solidly Republican for a long time, even though Idaho may be trending Democratic somewhat.

[JA]

Since when does "population growth in suburbs" equate to a strong Democratic trend, especially in a state like IDAHO? Both states are Safe R, and there is no indication that this will change any time soon, barring some weird migration patterns.

After 2006 and 2008, many people predicted that Montana would become the next Colorado/Oregon/Vermont/etc. How did that turn out again?

Texas will become the next California.

Austin is already on its way to surpassing San Francisco as America's liberal mecca. Houston is the next LA, Dallas will be San Diego, and Texas will be a Democratic lock by 2030 because of demographics. /s

Seriously though, Idaho and Wyoming are not going anywhere. Mormons in Idaho may not be enthusiastic about Trump's nationalism and vulgarity, but they are still ardent Republicans and conservatism is deeply entrenched in this region. Libertarianism likely has a greater presence there than liberalism.

[TML]

At this time, the only plausible scenarios I can think of which involve Democrats carrying these states in presidential elections is if the Democratic nominee is on track to win the popular vote by ~20%. In 1972 and 1984, the Republican nominees won both elections by around 20%, resulting in them winning 49 states in each case.

[RINO Tom]

WY will be R for the next 100 years and Idaho can trend D if there is growth in the Boise suburbs.

Why would super Republican suburbs growing help Democrats, bro?

[Skill and Chance]

WY will be R for the next 100 years and Idaho can trend D if there is growth in the Boise suburbs.

Why would super Republican suburbs growing help Democrats, bro?

"Why would super-Democratic counties growing help Republicans"- Texas Democrat in 1948

It takes time to actually flip states, but 2:1 Dem Millennials moving to the suburbs and exurbs en masse over the next 10-20 years would be the best thing that ever happened to the Democrats since the 1930's.  This is precisely how the GOP eventually got their version of the "demographic apocalypse" after 1968, by slowly but surely flipping suburban counties (and growing them by 3X while they were at it). 

[Goldwater]

WY will be R for the next 100 years and Idaho can trend D if there is growth in the Boise suburbs.

Why would super Republican suburbs growing help Democrats, bro?

"Why would super-Democratic counties growing help Republicans"- Texas Democrat in 1948

It takes time to actually flip states, but 2:1 Dem Millennials moving to the suburbs and exurbs en masse over the next 10-20 years would be the best thing that ever happened to the Democrats since the 1930's.  This is precisely how the GOP eventually got their version of the "demographic apocalypse" after 1968, by slowly but surely flipping suburban counties (and growing them by 3X while they were at it). 

But is the growth in Idaho really from liberals moving there? I don't see any signs of that being the case.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Since when does "population growth in suburbs" equate to a strong Democratic trend, especially in a state like IDAHO? Both states are Safe R, and there is no indication that this will change any time soon, barring some weird migration patterns.

After 2006 and 2008, many people predicted that Montana would become the next Colorado/Oregon/Vermont/etc. How did that turn out again?

Texas will become the next California.

Explain how , Texas is way more rural then California

[Technocracy Timmy]

Since when does "population growth in suburbs" equate to a strong Democratic trend, especially in a state like IDAHO? Both states are Safe R, and there is no indication that this will change any time soon, barring some weird migration patterns.

After 2006 and 2008, many people predicted that Montana would become the next Colorado/Oregon/Vermont/etc. How did that turn out again?

Texas will become the next California.

Explain how , Texas is way more rural then California

I was messing with MT Treasurer The part where he said how a lot of people thought Montana would become the next Vermont after 2008. Texas is definitely not going the way of California.

[TDAS04]

Ada County has trended left.  That doesn't necessarily mean that the Boise suburbs are trending left, but Boise proper has grown quite a bit too and is now fairly liberal.

Not that it will make Idaho remotely competitive in the foreseeable future.

[Mr. Smith]

Ada County has trended left.  That doesn't necessarily mean that the Boise suburbs are trending left, but Boise proper has grown quite a bit too and is now fairly liberal.

Not that it will make Idaho remotely competitive in the foreseeable future.

This is at the cost of the Northwest Panhandle though, which used to be more moderate.

[history nerd]

Not if the parties keep going the way they are... I can come up with scenarios but those are a bit far fetched.

[Tekken_Guy]

They're both staying Republican for a while.

[NOVA Green]

Since when does "population growth in suburbs" equate to a strong Democratic trend, especially in a state like IDAHO? Both states are Safe R, and there is no indication that this will change any time soon, barring some weird migration patterns.

After 2006 and 2008, many people predicted that Montana would become the next Colorado/Oregon/Vermont/etc. How did that turn out again?

Texas will become the next California.

Explain how , Texas is way more rural then California

Huh???

Sources....

I pulled some numbers, albeit a bit fast, based upon 2016 census data, trying to err in the favor of Texas, and it looks like roughly 14.4% of the Population lives in defined "Rural Areas" versus 13.5% in California.

Not sure if you have ever visited, spent much time, or lived in Texas (Which I did for four years very recently), but almost 80% of the Population is concentrated in a relatively small number of large and sprawling Metro Areas.

Not sure where you are going with the argument....

The suburbs of DFW, Houston, Austin, SA, and turnout levels in the cities of those Metro areas, are all key factors, rather than the "rural Texas" malarkey you appear to be proposing....

Although certainly if one drives all the way across Texas, it certainly looks that way, but even then it would be the equivalent of taking I-5 starting at Bakersfield and driving to the Oregon border, and most of the state appears to be rural....

[Figueira]

Since when does "population growth in suburbs" equate to a strong Democratic trend, especially in a state like IDAHO? Both states are Safe R, and there is no indication that this will change any time soon, barring some weird migration patterns.

After 2006 and 2008, many people predicted that Montana would become the next Colorado/Oregon/Vermont/etc. How did that turn out again?

Texas will become the next California.

Explain how , Texas is way more rural then California

Every state is more rural than California. California is the most urban state in the US.

[Figueira]

Anyway the only way I could see this happening is if so many Democratic-leaning people move into Idaho and Wyoming that the composition of the state changes. The current population of those two states is never going to vote Democratic.