Political Trends where you disagree with the Atlas Consensus

[I’m not Stu]

Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin IMO are likely to remain swing-states or light blue states after Trump, rather than sharply trend GOP.

The main reason they went red in 2016 is because Trump campaigned himself as a tough, reformist negotiator who would bring back jobs outsourced by free trade. Since that image has gradually weakened under the White House, those states are not really likely to have their hearts won by the GOP and sharply turn red like the Deep South. 

Trump is not governing like the pro-working class candidate he claimed to be. Ohio, Iowa, and ME-2 could possibly swing back as well. I just can't see those states becoming the new West Virginia.

[Virginiá]

Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin IMO are likely to remain swing-states or light blue states after Trump, rather than sharply trend GOP.

The main reason they went red in 2016 is because Trump campaigned himself as a tough, reformist negotiator who would bring back jobs outsourced by free trade. Since that image has gradually weakened under the White House, those states are not really likely to have their hearts won by the GOP and sharply turn red like the Deep South. 

Trump is not governing like the pro-working class candidate he claimed to be. Ohio, Iowa, and ME-2 could possibly swing back as well. I just can't see those states becoming the new West Virginia.

18-24 year olds in Iowa and Ohio voted relatively strongly for Clinton. Her weakest states in the midwest/rustbelt was Wisconsin and Minnesota, and even then, Trump only won that age group by low-mid single digits. Given that, as you mentioned, Trump is not governing like he campaigned (almost the total opposite in some regards, actually), I'd say he is legitimately squandering a chance to lock in some of those gains.

I think we'll really need to see how young people in those regions vote in 2020, but I'm not counting out any of those states yet.

[jamestroll]

everyone knows my answer here.

I disagree with the large consensus on this site that Illinois will become a solid gop state in the future.

[I’m not Stu]

Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin IMO are likely to remain swing-states or light blue states after Trump, rather than sharply trend GOP.

The main reason they went red in 2016 is because Trump campaigned himself as a tough, reformist negotiator who would bring back jobs outsourced by free trade. Since that image has gradually weakened under the White House, those states are not really likely to have their hearts won by the GOP and sharply turn red like the Deep South. 

Trump is not governing like the pro-working class candidate he claimed to be. Ohio, Iowa, and ME-2 could possibly swing back as well. I just can't see those states becoming the new West Virginia.

18-24 year olds in Iowa and Ohio voted relatively strongly for Clinton. Her weakest states in the midwest/rustbelt was Wisconsin and Minnesota, and even then, Trump only won that age group by low-mid single digits. Given that, as you mentioned, Trump is not governing like he campaigned (almost the total opposite in some regards, actually), I'd say he is legitimately squandering a chance to lock in some of those gains.

I think we'll really need to see how young people in those regions vote in 2020, but I'm not counting out any of those states yet.

Exactly. I also don't believe Richard Spencer will become President or even win a House or statewide election.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin IMO are likely to remain swing-states or light blue states after Trump, rather than sharply trend GOP.

The main reason they went red in 2016 is because Trump campaigned himself as a tough, reformist negotiator who would bring back jobs outsourced by free trade. Since that image has gradually weakened under the White House, those states are not really likely to have their hearts won by the GOP and sharply turn red like the Deep South.  

Trump is not governing like the pro-working class candidate he claimed to be. Ohio, Iowa, and ME-2 could possibly swing back as well. I just can't see those states becoming the new West Virginia.

18-24 year olds in Iowa and Ohio voted relatively strongly for Clinton. Her weakest states in the midwest/rustbelt was Wisconsin and Minnesota, and even then, Trump only won that age group by low-mid single digits. Given that, as you mentioned, Trump is not governing like he campaigned (almost the total opposite in some regards, actually), I'd say he is legitimately squandering a chance to lock in some of those gains.

I think we'll really need to see how young people in those regions vote in 2020, but I'm not counting out any of those states yet.

I think the biggest problem that Democrats have for them in the Midwest/Rust Belt is brain drain due to the fact that these states can't either entice young people to come or not leave.  That is why, assuming these states continue to be older and whiter than the national electorate, I would expect them to trend at least moderately Republican in future election cycles as younger and more diverse states trend Democratic.

(Or, at least that's how things would look on paper.)

[Virginiá]

I think the biggest problem that Democrats have for them in the Midwest/Rust Belt is brain drain due to the fact that these states can't either entice young people to come or not leave.  That is why, assuming these states continue to be older and whiter than the national electorate, I would expect them to trend at least moderately Republican in future election cycles as younger and more diverse states trend Democratic.

(Or, at least that's how things would look on paper.)

Oh that's a good point. I do remember reading a similar take on what you linked to about Iowa. It's not even just all sorts of young people, but precisely the kinds of young people Democrats do best with (college educated). I wonder how much of an impact that will have, and also whether these brain-drain states experience any "repatriation" of sorts, where maybe some long-lost young-turned-old people come back?

We'lllllll seeee!

[jamestroll]

Also Atlas tends to think that New Hampshire will become a solid Republican state. That is completely false. In a decade or two it will regularly break 60% Democratic and will be the most Democratic state in New England.

Yes when most of people on this site are out of diapers New Hampshire will be more Democratic compared to Massachusetts and Vermont.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Also Atlas tends to think that New Hampshire will become a solid Republican state. That is completely false. In a decade or two it will regularly break 60% Democratic and will be the most Democratic state in New England.

Yes when most of people on this site are out of diapers New Hampshire will be more Democratic compared to Massachusetts and Vermont.

Why? New Hampshire swung and trended R in 2016, and it did in 2012 as well.

[Virginiá]

Also Atlas tends to think that New Hampshire will become a solid Republican state. That is completely false. In a decade or two it will regularly break 60% Democratic and will be the most Democratic state in New England.

Yes when most of people on this site are out of diapers New Hampshire will be more Democratic compared to Massachusetts and Vermont.

Why? New Hampshire swung and trended R in 2016, and it did in 2012 as well.

On the state level, it's definitely more Democratic. Also, Trump did just 0.2% better than Romney - it was Clinton bleeding support to 3rd party candidates that made it look worse than it was, so I'm not sure exactly how well anyone can argue its future one way or the other. Best to wait for 2020 imo, although its shift to Democrats downballot after being so consistently Republican since before the Civil War speaks more to me than small movement at the presidential level.

[heatcharger]

Why? New Hampshire swung and trended R in 2016, and it did in 2012 as well.

On the state level, it's definitely more Democratic. Also, Trump did just 0.2% better than Romney - it was Clinton bleeding support to 3rd party candidates that made it look worse than it was, so I'm not sure exactly how well anyone can argue its future one way or the other. Best to wait for 2020 imo, although its shift to Democrats downballot after being so consistently Republican since before the Civil War speaks more to me than small movement at the presidential level.

I'm not sure I'm really a fan of this characterization. It basically asserts that 95-100% of 3rd party support came out of Obama's 2012 support and/or would've gone overwhelmingly to Clinton in a binary vote. In most places around the country, I don't think both are true.

And if you just look county results of NH (and MN, where I've heard this argument as well), Trump clearly did much better than Romney in some areas. Saying he only did a little bit better if at all feels like it's sweeping a trend under the rug because it looks bad. That said, I agree with you on the whole that NH isn't moving that much in one direction or the other, but that's because it's been elastic for a long time.

[Virginiá]

Ok, that's a fair point. But such low support for both of them still make me think that 2016 is not the best election to try and determine certain trends from. There were some long-term trends that you could definitely take from 2016, but in regards to some states, such as maybe Minnesota or in this case, New Hampshire, Trump getting such low support along with Clinton winning with such low support herself doesn't provide for a strong case. It makes me question if some other Democrat had run again, like a hypothetical 3rd Obama term or another Democrat, such as Biden or Liz Warren, would have been able to consolidate the Clinton and other non-Trump vote.

Edit: Just to try and make my point clearer, consider Minnesota, where Clinton won 46.4% - 44.9%. So with that margin you could say it trended Republican, and given the shifts with WWC/college grads, that is probably fair, but how much, and will it stick in the future? 44% is a really bad result, and winning by 46% isn't much better.

These were two very unpopular candidates - Hillary even more so with WWCs, and the results in some of these states don't seem like the most reliable predictors of the future, at least where the current trajectory of the state is at least somewhat questionable.

So yea I do have something of a partisan blindspot, but I wasn't trying to kick it under the rug shamelessly. I'm just a little doubtful of what some say these results might mean in states where both candidates didn't do so well - regardless of who won.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Why? New Hampshire swung and trended R in 2016, and it did in 2012 as well.

On the state level, it's definitely more Democratic. Also, Trump did just 0.2% better than Romney - it was Clinton bleeding support to 3rd party candidates that made it look worse than it was, so I'm not sure exactly how well anyone can argue its future one way or the other. Best to wait for 2020 imo, although its shift to Democrats downballot after being so consistently Republican since before the Civil War speaks more to me than small movement at the presidential level.

I'm not sure I'm really a fan of this characterization. It basically asserts that 95-100% of 3rd party support came out of Obama's 2012 support and/or would've gone overwhelmingly to Clinton in a binary vote. In most places around the country, I don't think both are true.

And if you just look county results of NH (and MN, where I've heard this argument as well), Trump clearly did much better than Romney in some areas. Saying he only did a little bit better if at all feels like it's sweeping a trend under the rug because it looks bad. That said, I agree with you on the whole that NH isn't moving that much in one direction or the other, but that's because it's been elastic for a long time.

In fact, didn't the national exit poll say that Trump would have tied or won the popular vote in a binary race?

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

There were some republican house voters who would have split for Clinton in a binary race.

[TML]

Many people here think that much of Appalachia is gone for good for the Democrats, even places where Democrats have a majority or plurality of registered voters.

I think that if the Democrats run candidates who can genuinely appeal to these people via economic populism, they can take back at least a significant chunk of this region where they have done well in the past. Many Appalachian voters live in poverty, yet they vote Republican because they think the Democratic party doesn't care about them enough. I believe this is due to corporatist influence on the party - if the party can rid itself of corporatist influence and genuinely portray themselves as the party of the working class, I think Appalachian voters will be more than happy to "come home" for them.

P.S. Although some people may be hostile toward the Democratic party for having policies unfavorable toward coal, I think most of these people do recognize that coal is on track to becoming a thing of the past. If the Democratic party pitches alternative non-coal jobs to these people (including jobs related to alternative/clean energy) in a manner which shows that they care about them, that will also be effective in winning these voters back.

[RINO Tom]

Democrats will never openly campaign on pro-growth, pro-business policies, and they will never be the consensus for the party no matter how *suburban* it gets (which also has a great deal to do with suburbs being more working class and less White than the suburbs Bush 41 swept).  Additionally, the GOP will never openly campaign on economically populist/redistributionist policies, and they will never be the consensus of the party no matter how *working class* it gets.

Also, Jimmie, no one thinks NH or IL will be "solid GOP" states ... you just want to keep talking about it.

[cvparty]

"mississippi and louisiana will become swing states"

[Not a Partisan Hack ( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡°)]

Populism will become really cool and politically acceptable once the next economic downtown strikes americans.

[TheSaint250]

A bunch of Republicans are not gonna vote for Democrats in 2018 just because they hate Trump.

"Trumpism" has not "taken over" the GOP.

[MT Treasurer]

That only a Charlie Baker-type Republican can win a national election in 15 years.

[RINO Tom]

That only a Charlie Baker-type Republican can win a national election in 15 years.

Is that an Atlas consensus?

[MT Treasurer]

That only a Charlie Baker-type Republican can win a national election in 15 years.

Is that an Atlas consensus?

This theory has been brought up by many posters lately, and it’s a hilariously bad hot take IMO.

[OSR stands with Israel]

That only a Charlie Baker-type Republican can win a national election in 15 years.

It comes from the BTM Timelines.



Heres's my belief on realignments : https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=285707.0

[OSR stands with Israel]

That only a Charlie Baker-type Republican can win a national election in 15 years.

It comes from the BTM Timelines.

Any Republican President in the next 15 years is gonna have to run in an electorate that’s roughly 62% nonhispanic white filled with millennial and college educated folks and 34-35% of those whites will always vote Democrat. So certain elements of today’s GOP will have to be greatly re-modified to win these emerging groups.

But I definitely agree that the idea that they’ll basically be a moderate Democrat ala Charlie Baker is pretty hackish even for liberals to think.

On Social Issues , Immigration , Climate Change , they will definitely will have to move to the left but not on economic issues.


I think the next Republican President will be more like Kasich though

[MT Treasurer]

Any Republican President in the next 15 years is gonna have to run in an electorate that’s roughly 62% nonhispanic white filled with millennial and college educated folks and 34-35% of those whites will always vote Democrat. So certain elements of today’s GOP will have to be greatly re-modified to win these emerging groups.

But I definitely agree that the idea that they’ll basically be a moderate Democrat ala Charlie Baker is pretty hackish even for liberals to think.

This is an underrated factor and a very good point. I’m not disagreeing with anything you just said, my point was simply that there are other ways for the GOP to adjust which don’t include shunning their Evangelical base or becoming indistinguishable from Democrats on vicrtually every social issue, for example. Certain elements and/or social/economic issues will probably lose importance, but that’s not necessarily indicative of a “realignment”. I also find this “Trump and Clinton were the most electable candidates” theory absolutely nonsensical. At the risk of uti2 reading this, yeah, it’s true that there was a lot of potential for candidate Trump, but I didn’t expect his GE campaign to be that bad when he won the nomination.

[RINO Tom]

That only a Charlie Baker-type Republican can win a national election in 15 years.

It comes from the BTM Timelines.

Any Republican President in the next 15 years is gonna have to run in an electorate that’s roughly 62% nonhispanic white filled with millennial and college educated folks and 34-35% of those whites will always vote Democrat. So certain elements of today’s GOP will have to be greatly re-modified to win these emerging groups.

But I definitely agree that the idea that they’ll basically be a moderate Democrat ala Charlie Baker is pretty hackish even for liberals to think.

By definition, Charlie Baker is as much of a moderate Republican as a "moderate Democrat" ... kind of the point of moderates, no?