Where should the Democratic Party appeal to: NOVA or Youngstown, Ohio?

[Suburbia]

What part of America should the post-Clinton/Obama Democratic Party appeal to following the 2016 presidential election loss? Should they appeal more to NOVA, Orange County, CA, Morris/Bergen, NJ, Hamptons, NY, Atlanta suburbanite "Panera Bread" types, or the previous traditional white working class Democratic areas-now trending Republican like Youngstown, Lorain, Dublin, Ohio, Appalachia, rural Western and Northern white ethnics?

[RINO Tom]

1) Appealing to NOVA is significantly different than appealing to Orange County.

2) They should appeal to more than two places.  There should, ideally, be a very competitive Democratic Party, tailored to that area, in 40-45 states, no?

[Technocracy Timmy]

1) Appealing to NOVA is significantly different than appealing to Orange County.

I thought all of the D-VA posters informed me that we're basically the same? COLLEGE EDUCATED WHITES rollin in benjamins from our high paying jobs who love us some Third way centrists right? Dat dere social liberal fiscal conservative/centrist alliance.

We're only separated by 2,300 miles. Our politics are probably the same anyhow.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

NOVA, Ohio is moving rightward, while Virginia is moving left and Iowa, PA, VA, MI and WI will vote to the left of the nation, in 2020.

And FL will be a bonus for the Dems

[Figueira]

https://youtu.be/vgk-lA12FBk

[RINO Tom]

Whether RINO Tom likes it or not, they will focus on places like GA-06 and VA-10 and not Ohio or Iowa.

They'll "focus" wherever they think they can win, but that isn't going to push them into a conservative economic platform to become, as you've so eloquently put it in the past, a "Fairfax County party."  They who most of their voters are, and their interests are diametrically opposed with a Democratic Party that becomes GOP lite on economic issues.

[MT Treasurer]

Whether RINO Tom likes it or not, they will focus on places like GA-06 and VA-10 and not Ohio or Iowa.

They'll "focus" wherever they think they can win, but that isn't going to push them into a conservative economic platform to become, as you've so eloquently put it in the past, a "Fairfax County party."  They who most of their voters are, and their interests are diametrically opposed with a Democratic Party that becomes GOP lite on economic issues.

The thing is... I highly doubt that economic issues are all these voters care about (and even if that were the case, a good chunk of them would vote for Democrats). These places are also changing demographically and much more receptive to the Democratic message (whatever you think it is) than they would have been in 2010 or so. There's a reason why Jon Ossoff is likely to win the special election in GA. I'm not sure why many Republicans assume that places like GA-06 will trend Republican again once Trump is no longer on the ballot.

I'm also not saying that Democrats won't be competitive in statewide or even Senate races in many of these states like WI or MI or that all suburban areas are destined to trend Democratic, but IMO it's pretty clear that their future lies in the Sun Belt rather than the Rust Belt. And you can make fun of the term "Fairfax County party" for as long as you want, but the Democrats have been courting these voters for a long time now (although I agree that NoVA is not your "typical" suburban area).

[SingingAnalyst]

It depends on whether they want to be a party for themselves (winning is the priority) or a party for the people (governing well is the priority). If for themselves, NOVA as it is growing. If for the people, Youngstown as the people there need help and may turn to extremist movements in larger numbers if they feel no party represents them.

[RINO Tom]

Whether RINO Tom likes it or not, they will focus on places like GA-06 and VA-10 and not Ohio or Iowa.

They'll "focus" wherever they think they can win, but that isn't going to push them into a conservative economic platform to become, as you've so eloquently put it in the past, a "Fairfax County party."  They who most of their voters are, and their interests are diametrically opposed with a Democratic Party that becomes GOP lite on economic issues.

The thing is... I highly doubt that economic issues are all these voters care about (and even if that were the case, a good chunk of them would vote for Democrats). These places are also changing demographically and much more receptive to the Democratic message (whatever you think it is) than they would have been in 2010 or so. There's a reason why Jon Ossoff is likely to win the special election in GA. I'm not sure why many Republicans assume that places like GA-06 will trend Republican again once Trump is no longer on the ballot.

I'm also not saying that Democrats won't be competitive in statewide or even Senate races in many of these states like WI or MI or that all suburban areas are destined to trend Democratic, but IMO it's pretty clear that their future lies in the Sun Belt rather than the Rust Belt. And you can make fun of the term "Fairfax County party" for as long as you want, but the Democrats have been courting these voters for a long time now (although I agree that NoVA is not your "typical" suburban area).

Sorry, but I just don't really buy this whole thing.  Do rich White suburbanites not vote as Republican as they used to?  Sure.  But this myth of affluent Whites becoming big Democrats only seems to appear in the nerdy minds of our friends here at Atlas.  Most people think closer to the narrative of, "a rich billionaire Republican just won POTUS, what realignment?"  Let's use DuPage County, IL - a county that had voted Republican every election until 2008 - as an example.  It was 84.05% White in 2000 and onlly 77.8% White in 2010 (and less than that now).  If the GOP won 55% of Whites and 25% of minorities in 2000 (a totally legitimate guess for this county), they would have won the county 50.22%-49.79% in a two-way vote.  Given the margins, they clearly won north of 55% of Whites that election.  In 2008, with the exact same percent of Whites, McCain still would have lost the county 48.34%-51.66%.  There was also probably increased minority turnout.

Affluent, White suburban counties starting to vote Democratic does not necessarily mean that affluent White suburbanites are switching their voting habits, and to go with that analysis without digging into how the county has changed is lazy.  GA-06 going Democratic would almost CERTAINLY have more to do with it being more diverse than wealthy Whites - an incredibly natural Republican demographic, just as much in 2017 as ever - deciding one day that they are now Democrats.

[Technocracy Timmy]

But this myth of affluent Whites becoming big Democrats only seems to appear in the nerdy minds of our friends here at Atlas. 

It's not just atlas, I encounter this same mentality a lot on certain Subreddits (politicaldiscussion especially). Basically many of them have now come to the conclusion based on the 2016 election that the entire political landscape has changed. Here's the narrative I've seen time and time again: The GOP will become the populist, working class white, trade protectionist Party while the Democrats will become the globalist, free trade, cosmopolitan, technocratic elite class of white liberals + minorities.

It's incredibly frustrating to argue with this narrative time and time again. It's almost always based on trend from one election. Oh and apparently Bernie Sanders losing the primary means that he has had absolutely no influence on the direction of the Party. Riiiiiiight...

[Technocracy Timmy]

Here's the narrative I've seen time and time again: The GOP will become the populist, working class white, trade protectionist Party while the Democrats will become the globalist, free trade, cosmopolitan, technocratic elite class of white liberals + minorities.

It's incredibly frustrating to argue with this narrative time and time again. It's almost always based on trend from one election. Oh and apparently Bernie Sanders losing the primary means that he has had absolutely no influence on the direction of the Party. Riiiiiiight...

Bernie's loss obviously something to do with it, yeah. But if this narrative is so ridiculous, why are you predicting that New York will become a Republican state and Texas and Montana Democratic strongholds?

I've never said that Montana would go for the Democratic Party. I even told TD I didn't think that the Democrats would win Montana even in a realigning election.

New York is likely to become at least a tossup state by 2040 if the 2020's Democratic realignment that I think is likely to occur actually happens. By 2040 this would basically be college educated whites plus upscale minorities going for the GOP while working class whites and minorities go for the Democratic Party. The GOP needs to take root over large states as a base of support. PA, NJ, and OH would be good starting points. From then on they need to take at least one of TX, CA, NY, or FL. Given California's history I don't think it'll be there. Florida and Texas are predominantantly populated by working class whites and minority groups so I'm iffy on if they'll take root in those areas; particularly because they're sunbelt states.

New York is really the only answer in that situation (especially given its proximity to PA and NJ). They might be able to keep TX, FL, and NY all competitive by 2040 but I doubt it.

[MT Treasurer]

This is all speculation, really. No one knows what the party coalitions in 2040 will look like, so all we can do is make a random guess.

I personally doubt that states like Iowa will be more Democratic than New York in 2040, but whatever. Plus, I can't really imagine working class Whites being more Democratic than College educated Whites or affluent, upscale minorities by then, even though that's obviously what most Republicans on this forum want to happen.

[Technocracy Timmy]

This is all speculation, really. No one knows what the party coalitions in 2040 will look like, so all we can do is make a random guess.

I personally doubt that states like Iowa will be more Democratic than New York in 2040, but whatever. Plus, I can't really imagine working class Whites being more Democratic than College educated Whites or affluent, upscale minorities by then, even though that's obviously what most Republicans on this forum want to happen.

I don't know exactly what will happen in 2040 either in terms of which Party controls which states or how strongly demographic group votes for each Party. I can take a guess based on the history of each respective Party and the fallout of a Democratic realignment in the 2020's though.

Ultimately I do think that there's both economic and generational forces that will produce a Democratic realignment in the 2020's. Realignments have happened before and I don't see why they can't happen again.

[Virginiá]

Whether or not wealthy people stay with Democrats or simply stick with them for a little bit, it seems rather unambiguous that there has been a trend towards the party over the past generation:



Some of these elections you might be able to say, "well, it was a GOP landslide," but others, like 1976, 2004 and 2012 in comparison to the past suggest Democrats have made more durable inroads with them.

I agree that this particular constituency seems like a terrible fit for the Democratic Party, and over the long run, it seems likely they will break away from the party at some point, but for now there is a reason they are siding with Democrats and somehow I doubt it will end anytime soon. I think the GOP will need to undergo some changes to make itself more palatable to them, namely tamping down their social conservatism.

Further, I really don't think white college graduates in general (which doesn't necessarily imply wealthy) will always be a GOP-dominated demographic. With Millennials being so highly educated, and gen z likely to be somewhat similar in that regard, if not more, it seems likely that they for now, white college grads will be somewhat more Democratic. The divide in education also extends to Millennials, and it is rather sharp. In order for the electorate to shape up the way you guys are talking, there would have to be a substantial reversal among young voters when they grow up, and that rarely ever seems to happen.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Im not positive how long wealthier voters will stay with the Democrats given that the economic direction the Democratic Party is currently taking is with Sanders and Warren. We'll see I guess.

We're seeing a re nationalization of political parties both here and in other western countries. Center party votes (but particularly the center-left) have been declining across the OECD and that trend is likely to continue given that the economic and social forces which have led up to this aren't going away.

[Del Tachi]

Whether RINO Tom likes it or not, they will focus on places like GA-06 and VA-10 and not Ohio or Iowa.

They'll "focus" wherever they think they can win, but that isn't going to push them into a conservative economic platform to become, as you've so eloquently put it in the past, a "Fairfax County party."  They who most of their voters are, and their interests are diametrically opposed with a Democratic Party that becomes GOP lite on economic issues.

The thing is... I highly doubt that economic issues are all these voters care about (and even if that were the case, a good chunk of them would vote for Democrats). These places are also changing demographically and much more receptive to the Democratic message (whatever you think it is) than they would have been in 2010 or so. There's a reason why Jon Ossoff is likely to win the special election in GA. I'm not sure why many Republicans assume that places like GA-06 will trend Republican again once Trump is no longer on the ballot.

I'm also not saying that Democrats won't be competitive in statewide or even Senate races in many of these states like WI or MI or that all suburban areas are destined to trend Democratic, but IMO it's pretty clear that their future lies in the Sun Belt rather than the Rust Belt. And you can make fun of the term "Fairfax County party" for as long as you want, but the Democrats have been courting these voters for a long time now (although I agree that NoVA is not your "typical" suburban area).

Sorry, but I just don't really buy this whole thing.  Do rich White suburbanites not vote as Republican as they used to?  Sure.  But this myth of affluent Whites becoming big Democrats only seems to appear in the nerdy minds of our friends here at Atlas.  Most people think closer to the narrative of, "a rich billionaire Republican just won POTUS, what realignment?"  Let's use DuPage County, IL - a county that had voted Republican every election until 2008 - as an example.  It was 84.05% White in 2000 and onlly 77.8% White in 2010 (and less than that now).  If the GOP won 55% of Whites and 25% of minorities in 2000 (a totally legitimate guess for this county), they would have won the county 50.22%-49.79% in a two-way vote.  Given the margins, they clearly won north of 55% of Whites that election.  In 2008, with the exact same percent of Whites, McCain still would have lost the county 48.34%-51.66%.  There was also probably increased minority turnout.

Affluent, White suburban counties starting to vote Democratic does not necessarily mean that affluent White suburbanites are switching their voting habits, and to go with that analysis without digging into how the county has changed is lazy.  GA-06 going Democratic would almost CERTAINLY have more to do with it being more diverse than wealthy Whites - an incredibly natural Republican demographic, just as much in 2017 as ever - deciding one day that they are now Democrats.

You're also neglecting the fact that just as many voters are swung on social/Culture Wars type issues as economic issues.  Democratic positions on race, religion, gender, gay rights, abortion, and immigration are all more aligned with your average voter in DuPage County than the Republicans' positions on these same issues. 

Religious fundamentalism was enough to make Southern Whites abandon the Democrats en masse, and I expect Millennial-inspired inclusive social liberalism is enough to cause northern suburbanites to flock to the Dems as well.

[RINO Tom]

This is all speculation, really. No one knows what the party coalitions in 2040 will look like, so all we can do is make a random guess.

I personally doubt that states like Iowa will be more Democratic than New York in 2040, but whatever. Plus, I can't really imagine working class Whites being more Democratic than College educated Whites or affluent, upscale minorities by then, even though that's obviously what most Republicans on this forum want to happen.

But again, even if that's true (and it might be) in 2040, it will likely be a function of a college education being a more mainstream and "less impressive" accolade than it was in the 1980s and 1990s, when that group was solidly Republican.  Yet, the narrative on Atlas will be that a college education makes you more socially liberal or tolerant or enlightened or whatever, and those people are *turned off by the modern GOP*.  While that second part might play a factor, pure common sense mathematics will say that most of Democrats' "advantage" among college-educated Whites (if they even have one, which I'm oh-so-skeptical about) will be due to the fact that a heavily Democratic generation (Millenails) just happen to be much more likely than older, more Republican generations (Boomers) to have one in the first place.

If the generation below Millenials continues the trend of a college education more or less replacing a high school one in terms of necessity in the modern world and they grow up a Republican generation, the GOP will regain a big advantage among college educated voters...  Again, I'm not saying no college educated or affluent people don't vote Democratic because they're "repulsed" by the GOP, because they do ... but more of the educational divide can be explained by a generational divide, and that just seems like common sense to me; it's amazing it never gets talked about.  Additionally, Democrats are winning huge margins among college-educated minorities (funny enough, it's never talked about that college-educated minorities are always more Republican than non-college minorities, because what narrative could even be crafted by that?!  LOL), and that's going to continue to skew "college graduates" as a group toward the Democratic Party, but that won't be because of some shift among formally Republican college grads; it will be the group fundamentally changing its makeup with time.