WI/MI/PA: Which is the most worrisome for Democrats *long-term*?

[Xing]

Of the three states that flipped Republican in 2016 for the first time since the 80s, which should worry Democrats the most in the long-term? I have a feeling that most people here are going to say Wisconsin, but I actually think that the answer is Michigan. It had the strongest R trend of the three in 2016, and that R trend is even more pronounced if you compare it to where it was in 2000. Also, consider that its largest city, Detroit, is bleeding population very rapidly. By contrast, Milwaukee's population seems to have stabilized, and Madison is growing pretty quickly. While Pittsburgh's population is still declining, Philadelphia's has begun to grow again, not to mention it seems as though the Philly suburbs are trending Democratic.

In other words, it seems as though the support Democrats have in the cities of WI/PA may mitigate the collapse they faced in rural WI/PA, but that might not be the case in MI. Also, note that I'm talking long-term here. I'm guessing Michigan will probably flip back in 2020, but in 2024/2028, I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up being more Republican than WI/PA.

[King Lear]

Wisconsin by far, due to the fact it is the most White and Rural of the three, and to make matters worse its Suburbs have remained overwhelmingly Republican. You have a point about Michigan in the sense that the collapse of Detroit is a very big problem for Democrats, However the fact that it is the least White of the three will make it the most winnable for Democrats in at least the next couple presidential elections. Pennsylvania is complicated, due to the fact that the relative stability of Philadelphias population (it hasn't experienced any Detroit-like collapse), along with the massive Democratic trend in the fast-growing Philadelphia suburbs, seems to bode well for Democrats, however, on the other hand, we don't know how much of the Democratic shift in the suburbs is long-term or just a reaction to Trump, and we also don't know if Democrats have totally bottomed out yet in the rural areas. I still think that Larry Sabatos analysis in the aftermath of the 2016 election is still the most accurate, in that Clinton lost Pennsylvania and Wisconsin due to a collapse in White Rural areas (which is probably not going to reverse anytime soon), while she lost Michigan due to Low-turnout from Nonwhite Urban voters (which could be reversed with the right candidate).

[Skill and Chance]

Of the 3, PA is clearly the best medium-long term proposition for Democrats to win statewide.  It's a close call between Michigan and Wisconsin and it largely depends on whether the trends we have seen in other metro areas since 2016 extend to the Milwaukee suburbs.  I'm not saying it will happen, but there is at least an area of the state that has potential for significant Dem improvement.

I expect all 3 states to be lean R by the late 2020's (arguably they already are below the presidential level).  I agree with you that Michigan is the most likely to turn into a 55/45 or 60/40 R state of the 3, because with Detroit's rapid population loss, Democrats have nothing to counter increasingly lopsided GOP rural margins with.

[Mr. Smith]

If you look at 2000, Wisconsin was only barely won...actually, with 1% states flipped, the map looks eerily similar to 2016 in Bush's favor (besides Oregon anyway). The whole "muh not since teh '80's" panic looks rather silly when considering Gore and Kerry's performances.

Also, you forget about the big Muslim population in Dearborn County.

Hillary didn't actively engage that voting bloc but made a few small little gestures. A Democrat actively going after that bloc however could make up the losses in Detroit.

[Skill and Chance]

If you look at 2000, Wisconsin was only barely won...actually, with 1% states flipped, the map looks eerily similar to 2016 in Bush's favor (besides Oregon anyway). The whole "muh not since teh '80's" panic looks rather silly when considering Gore and Kerry's performances.

Also, you forget about the big Muslim population in Dearborn County.

Hillary didn't actively engage that voting bloc but made a few small little gestures. A Democrat actively going after that bloc however could make up the losses in Detroit.

So many people overlooked this and focused on the presidential streaks.  When you look downballot, it's clear that the only Midwestern states where Democrats actually consolidated power during this period were IL and MN.  Everywhere else has been quite swingy for a while (indeed, most of these states went from safe GOP to swingy since the mid 20th century).

There's also the matter of these states being very anti-war in general, regardless of which party is controlling government during the war.  I think WI/MN/PA and maybe even MI would have gone for Bush in 2004 without this.

[PoliticalShelter]

It's important to keep in mind that both Wisconsin and Michigan suffered from large drops in black turnout so there is probably room for the Democrats to make up room with these voters.

Pennsylvania on the other hand had very strong turnout from black voters so there is probably less room for Democrtas to grow from that perspective. Or alternatively the Democrats could potentially experience a much further collapse with black voters in Pennlsvania than in the other two states.

[Mr. Smith]

If you look at 2000, Wisconsin was only barely won...actually, with 1% states flipped, the map looks eerily similar to 2016 in Bush's favor (besides Oregon anyway). The whole "muh not since teh '80's" panic looks rather silly when considering Gore and Kerry's performances.

Also, you forget about the big Muslim population in Dearborn County.

Hillary didn't actively engage that voting bloc but made a few small little gestures. A Democrat actively going after that bloc however could make up the losses in Detroit.

So many people overlooked this and focused on the presidential streaks.  When you look downballot, it's clear that the only Midwestern states where Democrats actually consolidated power during this period were IL and MN.  Everywhere else has been quite swingy for a while (indeed, most of these states went from safe GOP to swingy since the mid 20th century).

There's also the matter of these states being very anti-war in general, regardless of which party is controlling government during the war.  I think WI/MN/PA and maybe even MI would have gone for Bush in 2004 without this.

Minnesota was also nearly lost too.

[OneJ]

Michigan just based on Detroit alone. While Detroit is experiencing a small, yet noticeable bounce (too early to call it a comeback) the ongoing decline of its black population should worry the Democrats.

[Burke859]

Between 2000 and 2004, Bush did better in MI and PA but worse in WI.

I think for Trump it will be the opposite.

The coalitions that elected Bush and Trump may have been similar in the South but were very different in the Rust Belt.

There are some who say that, elasticity aside, the Midwest and Rust Belt will never go back to the voting patterns of the 2000s, and that there's been some serious post-Obama horse trading among white voters in the Midwest that isn't going to reverse, Trump or no Trump.

If that's the case, WI will trend more R over time.  MI and PA may trend more R as well, but WI is the one that could become lean R in the future.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Between 2000 and 2004, Bush did better in MI and PA but worse in WI.

I think for Trump it will be the opposite.

The coalitions that elected Bush and Trump may have been similar in the South but were very different in the Rust Belt.

There are some who say that, elasticity aside, the Midwest and Rust Belt will never go back to the voting patterns of the 2000s, and that there's been some serious post-Obama horse trading among white voters in the Midwest that isn't going to reverse, Trump or no Trump.

If that's the case, WI will trend more R over time.  MI and PA may trend more R as well, but WI is the one that could become lean R in the future.

no just no

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000#State_results


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004#Close_states

[Burke859]

no just no

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000#State_results


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004#Close_states

Where am I wrong?  Those links show the following margins:

2000:

MI - Gore +5.13
PA - Gore +4.17
WI - Gore +0.22

2004:

MI - Kerry +3.42
PA - Kerry +2.50
WI - Kerry +0.38

I'm seeing Bush doing worse in WI his second time around, and Bush doing better in MI and PA his second time around.

[OSR stands with Israel]

no just no

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000#State_results


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004#Close_states

Where am I wrong?  Those links show the following margins:

2000:

MI - Gore +5.13
PA - Gore +4.17
WI - Gore +0.22

2004:

MI - Kerry +3.42
PA - Kerry +2.50
WI - Kerry +0.38

I'm seeing Bush doing worse in WI his second time around, and Bush doing better in MI and PA his second time around.

Oh sorry I read thought you said that Bush did worse in WI than in PA and MI lol

[IceSpear]

Wisconsin. It's the most white, the most rural, and the Milwaukee suburbs are still very Republican (even though Trump collapsed there.)

[RINO Tom]

Wisconsin. It's the most white, the most rural, and the Milwaukee suburbs are still very Republican (even though Trump collapsed there.)

Pennsylvania: 53% Suburban, 27% Urban, 19% Rural
Michigan: 50% Suburban, 27% Rural, 23% Urban
Wisconsin: 39% Urban, 34% Suburban, 27% Rural

Exit polls aren't perfect, but Wisconsin appears to be about as rural as Michigan.

Anyway, I agree: Wisconsin is easily the best longterm prospect for the GOP out of these three.  Take your pick of Michigan and Pennsylvania for most likely to flip back next election (though I think all three do), as both might for different reasons.

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

I would say Michigan. While PA is trending republican, there's almost no room for continued improvement off of Trump's margins in rural areas, the Philly suburbs trended the other way, and the smaller cities like Reading and Allentown have seen an influx of Hispanics. Trump did well in rural Michigan, but not as well as in rural PA, suggesting more room for growth. Michigan is whiter and Detroit isn't growing like most metros (it also doesn't have a Pittsburgh equivalent to help it outvote the rest of the state). Wisconsin is strange because its suburbs are solidly republican and the rural areas just swung to the GOP for the first time with Trump. I don't think they can keep the suburbs solidly red and turn the rural western counties solidly red at the same time. Even if they can, WI is not nearly as much of a loss for dems in the electoral college as MI, let alone PA.

[Burke859]

I don't think they can keep the suburbs solidly red and turn the rural western counties solidly red at the same time. Even if they can, WI is not nearly as much of a loss for dems in the electoral college as MI, let alone PA.

I have a theory (that may be wrong, but whatever) about this.  I don't think that all suburbanites are equal politically.  I wonder if the reason that Virginia and Minnesota have suburbanites that seemed to be okay pre-Obama with Bush-Rubio Republicans but not with today's Trump Republicans is that those are states with suburban voters who are largely whites with college degrees and well-off non-whites.

Meanwhile, perhaps the suburbs in places like Wisconsin and Michigan have more hardware store owner types, i.e., voters who are still doing okay financially, but who have some college instead of a number of degrees, and who are more likely to be a small business owner than someone working at a white shoe firm with a Master's degree.  If that's the case, then it would make sense that Wisconsin suburbs remained Republican in the Obama/Trump era, and it may even mean that the same sort of Trumpy campaign will appeal to Wisconsin voters in both suburbs and rural areas (as did Scott Walker, in a way).

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

I don't think they can keep the suburbs solidly red and turn the rural western counties solidly red at the same time. Even if they can, WI is not nearly as much of a loss for dems in the electoral college as MI, let alone PA.

I have a theory (that may be wrong, but whatever) about this.  I don't think that all suburbanites are equal politically.  I wonder if the reason that Virginia and Minnesota have suburbanites that seemed to be okay pre-Obama with Bush-Rubio Republicans but not with today's Trump Republicans is that those are states with suburban voters who are largely whites with college degrees and well-off non-whites.

Meanwhile, perhaps the suburbs in places like Wisconsin and Michigan have more hardware store owner types, i.e., voters who are still doing okay financially, but who have some college instead of a number of degrees, and who are more likely to be a small business owner than someone working at a white shoe firm with a Master's degree.  If that's the case, then it would make sense that Wisconsin suburbs remained Republican in the Obama/Trump era, and it may even mean that the same sort of Trumpy campaign will appeal to Wisconsin voters in both suburbs and rural areas (as did Scott Walker, in a way).

For sure not all suburbs are the same. That's more about race than education though, which probably explains why areas like NOVA and Greater Atlanta are swinging but not the Milwaukee suburbs, which have stayed fairly white. People on here sometimes act like Trump lost college educated whites by a landslide when really he just won them by a little less than non-college whites. Interestingly, the education gap is reversed with nonwhite voters, unlike the gender gap.

[RaphaelDLG]

MI because of Kid Rock

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

I think that Trump actually fits best in PA and worst in WI, simply because the base in WI is not fond of him and the turnout on GOP side wont be as strong. But in the longterm, Wisconsin is definitely the one that would probably flip first. The suburbs in WI are the most republican of the three states and they seem to be more Cruz-esque, which means even if the GOP drops trumpism, they could not only still win those suburbs comfortably, but perform even better. Also, Wisconsin is more like a combination of a rust belt state and a farming state and therefore I think the rural vote is the most republican no matter what direction the GOP is going.

[RINO Tom]

I think that Trump actually fits best in PA and worst in WI, simply because the base in WI is not fond of him and the turnout on GOP side wont be as strong. But in the longterm, Wisconsin is definitely the one that would probably flip first. The suburbs in WI are the most republican of the three states and they seem to be more Cruz-esque, which means even if the GOP drops trumpism, they could not only still win those suburbs comfortably, but perform even better. Also, Wisconsin is more like a combination of a rust belt state and a farming state and therefore I think the rural vote is the most republican no matter what direction the GOP is going.

Maybe, but in 2016, the rural vote was the LEAST Republican in Wisconsin of those three states.

[Young Conservative]

Considering they've done absolutely nothing to try and win back voters in these states, I would presume all should be concerning still.

[here2view]

Considering they've done absolutely nothing to try and win back voters in these states, I would presume all should be concerning still.

Considering how Trump has done nothing to prove these voters right in these three Democrat-tilting states that he won by less than .75%, I'm not as worried as you think I should be.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=280737.0

Don't forget that his approval ratings are lower here than in Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio.