What is the NEXT game-changing trend?

[Wisconsin SC Race 2019]

It seems like there are huge regional trends that crest a different times:

GOP:

There was a plains/Mountain West GOP trend that began during the 30s and hit a peak in the late 70s (when Ford massively swept the region even in Carter's win). This was due to the lack of white ethnics/WWC Catholics that were vital to the New Deal coalition. This arguably was weakened in the 90s (at least in the Mountain West) when Clinton began making a play for the middle class/Latinos, which opened up Colorado/Arizona/Nevada to competitive elections, as well as in 2016, with suburban Kansas has begun a slight drift left.

The Southern States GOP trend that began in the mid 60's culminated in Dubya winning every former Confederate state. It can be argued that the Republicans have already hit their peak here around '04. This trend seems to have hit a standstill, as black votes and Northern transplants have begun making their presence known.

The current GOP trend is the Rust Belt part of the Midwest due to the Dems forgetting and disrespecting the working class to their detriment in favour of trendy identity interests of the coasts. The trend started with Clinton bringing about NAFTA and has grown stronger. It arguably still hasn't reached its peak yet, though Trump's sweep of the region is indicating that the peak is coming soon.

Democrats:

Not to be outdone, the Dems have had their own trends that peaked at differing times.

The first notable one is the Great Lakes/Midwestern trend that began when the union-fueled Midwest began to be the more reliable source of votes as the Solid South slipped away and the coasts haven't had their demographic transition yet. This trend arguably peaked in 1988, when the Rust Belt and Plains gave Dukakis great margins even in Bush I's landslide. 2016 has practically wiped away any vestige of this era.

The 2nd one started in the North East/New England as the Dems began drawing in surburbanites turned off by the Religious Right turn that the GOP had gotten into. This was also the crowd that was brought in by Third Way neoliberal policies, which appealed to these traditionally Republican voters. It hit a peak around 2012, and is starting to wane with rural New Englanders as well as white ethnics in the Boston/Providence area turning toward the GOP.

The current Dem trend started around '08 with Obama successfully winning over Asians/Latinos, who otherwise were strong for the GOP, as well as wealthy blue-bloods turned off by Tea Party politics. The regions most responsive to this trend is the New South (think Dallas, Atlanta, Charlotte, NoVa) as well as the South West. This arguably hasn't hit its peak yet, even with Hillary's crushing of this demographic.

======================
After these trends start to fade, what do you think is the next trend to the current presidential voting patterns? Assuming current trends hit a breaking point and diverging, here are some of my predictions.

GOP-favouring:
*Serious gains among Catholic white ethnics that may make Queens/NE Philly/North Jersey much more competitive, and make places like Staten Island the new Orange County.
*Social moderation allowing them to win secular, centrist whites (think Seattle suburbs/Western Massachusetts/Non-Portland part of Oregon).
*The maturing of the Latino immigrant community in which 3rd/4th generation immigrants begin showing signs of either assimilation or drift into white ethnic territory.


Dem-favouring:
*Possible gains among plains/Midlandish/Non-RustBelty Midwest whites. (Kansas is showing early signs of this, and Central Ohio/ Central Indiana/the area of Wisconsin surrounding Hudson and WOW seem ripe for a new trend)
*Mormons?
*Possibly even Kentucky bordering Cincinnati?
*Dems have no where to go but up in Eastern TN...that might be a possibility.
*Another possibility are "Dutch" areas, such as SW Michigan and that corner of Iowa. We saw some trend toward the Dems there...

[Del Tachi]

The re-population of the South with African-American transplants from other parts of the country could really tip the scales in GA, NC and FL.  Coupled with White population loss and Southern suburbanites moderating and becoming more Democratic voting in response to Trump, states like MS, AL and LA could hypothetically become competitive.

[Wisconsin SC Race 2019]

The re-population of the South with African-American transplants from other parts of the country could really tip the scales in GA, NC and FL.  Coupled with White population loss and Southern suburbanites moderating and becoming more Democratic voting in response to Trump, states like MS, AL and LA could hypothetically become competitive.

I agree with you that this is the most likely next step in that area, but this isn’t exactly a new trend, but a continuation of current ones.

[RINO Tom]

The GOP trend in the South started long before the mid-1960s.

[Wisconsin SC Race 2019]

The GOP trend in the South started long before the mid-1960s.

I see two separate sub-trends. The early wave “Northern Transplant”, white flight suburban trend starting in the 40s (this wave decayed around the time Obama began rallying these same areas), and the main “Deep South” trend that I already mentioned. I forecast this specific wave to hit a sharp decay around 2024ish, as I don’t see where the GOP can possibly improve among whites there.

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

Colorado and Nevada were competitive in 2012 and safely D in 2008 (when even Montana was fairly close). Latinos were never majority republican (and the 2004 exit poll claiming 44% of Hispanics voted for Bush has been widely debunked), and Asians were already swinging hard towards Dems before Obama (likely due to the religious right). Otherwise, I agree with your analysis.

One thing that was left out would be the Southernization of the rural white vote in the North. Places that voted 55-45 Romney went 70-30 Trump and it doesn't look like Ds are winning back these voters.

[Wisconsin SC Race 2019]

Colorado and Nevada were competitive in 2012 and safely D in 2008 (when even Montana was fairly close). Latinos were never majority republican (and the 2004 exit poll claiming 44% of Hispanics voted for Bush has been widely debunked), and Asians were already swinging hard towards Dems before Obama (likely due to the religious right). Otherwise, I agree with your analysis.

One thing that was left out would be the Southernization of the rural white vote in the North. Places that voted 55-45 Romney went 70-30 Trump and it doesn't look like Ds are winning back these voters.

It may not have been 44%, but the wild swings the Houston and Dallas areas have seen suggest that Latino votes were more competitive than they were today. Just look at places like Harris  and Fort Bend Counties. As for the Asian swing, Vietnamese and Filipinos still held strong for the GOP during the Presidency of W.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

The GOP trend in the South started long before the mid-1960s.

It really started in 1948, when Truman was seen as too pro-civil rights by many white Southerners.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The GOP trend in the South started long before the mid-1960s.

It really started in 1948, when Truman was seen as too pro-civil rights by many white Southerners.

you could argue it started in 1928 but the Depression just held back the trend for another 20 years

[Wisconsin SC Race 2019]

The GOP trend in the South started long before the mid-1960s.

It really started in 1948, when Truman was seen as too pro-civil rights by many white Southerners.

It was only a blip due to Truman desegregating the military (great move on his part). It didn't lead to any permanent trend, unlike LBJ signing away the South for generations...

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

The GOP trend in the South started long before the mid-1960s.

It really started in 1948, when Truman was seen as too pro-civil rights by many white Southerners.

It was only a blip due to Truman desegregating the military (great move on his part). It didn't lead to any permanent trend, unlike LBJ signing away the South for generations...

I'd argue it did lead to a permanent trend, as Ike won every Southern state except for the core deep South in '52 and '56.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

Mormon dems could definitely happen or even evangelicals trending d. If the dems go full Sanders-esque on economic issues, it could be translated into a religious movement especially as the older more socially conservative members of said religions die off.

[Wisconsin SC Race 2019]

Mormon dems could definitely happen or even evangelicals trending d. If the dems go full Sanders-esque on economic issues, it could be translated into a religious movement especially as the older more socially conservative members of said religions die off.

Considering that a rising percentage of Mormons and evangelicals are ethnic minorities, and the Gen Z alt-right showing a more secular bent, we might see some religious realignment soon.

[Skill and Chance]

Mormon dems could definitely happen or even evangelicals trending d. If the dems go full Sanders-esque on economic issues, it could be translated into a religious movement especially as the older more socially conservative members of said religions die off.

Considering that a rising percentage of Mormons and evangelicals are ethnic minorities, and the Gen Z alt-right showing a more secular bent, we might see some religious realignment soon.

This would happen incredibly fast if abortion were left to the states.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Mormon dems could definitely happen or even evangelicals trending d. If the dems go full Sanders-esque on economic issues, it could be translated into a religious movement especially as the older more socially conservative members of said religions die off.

Bernie Sanders is not William Jennings Bryan.

[Skill and Chance]

Bernie certainly isn't William Jennings Bryan, but a Dem coalition that is economically "Bernie" and managed to take control of the federal government would have a very substantial wing that was Bryan-like (i.e. notably more socially conservative and publicly religious than 95% of elected Dems today).  I don't think Dems will ultimately go this route as it is the harder path back to a majority when they can just wait out Trump and ride the enhanced urban-rural divide to victory once they swing Phoenix, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, etc. toward them by another 5-10% without having to change much ideologically, but it's certainly a possibility that they target disenchanted populists who expected more from Trump.

I would say there's a 2/3rds chance the Doug Jones coalition is the future of the Democratic Party, but I could also see it being a cross between Connor Lamb and Bernie.

[libertpaulian]

Bernie certainly isn't William Jennings Bryan, but a Dem coalition that is economically "Bernie" and managed to take control of the federal government would have a very substantial wing that was Bryan-like (i.e. notably more socially conservative and publicly religious than 95% of elected Dems today).  I don't think Dems will ultimately go this route as it is the harder path back to a majority when they can just wait out Trump and ride the enhanced urban-rural divide to victory once they swing Phoenix, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, etc. toward them by another 5-10% without having to change much ideologically, but it's certainly a possibility that they target disenchanted populists who expected more from Trump.

I would say there's a 2/3rds chance the Doug Jones coalition is the future of the Democratic Party, but I could also see it being a cross between Connor Lamb and Bernie.

I think a Doug Jones-Conor Lamb hybrid is very likely for the realigner.  Richard Cordray seems to fit the bill.

[Wisconsin SC Race 2019]

Bernie certainly isn't William Jennings Bryan, but a Dem coalition that is economically "Bernie" and managed to take control of the federal government would have a very substantial wing that was Bryan-like (i.e. notably more socially conservative and publicly religious than 95% of elected Dems today).  I don't think Dems will ultimately go this route as it is the harder path back to a majority when they can just wait out Trump and ride the enhanced urban-rural divide to victory once they swing Phoenix, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, etc. toward them by another 5-10% without having to change much ideologically, but it's certainly a possibility that they target disenchanted populists who expected more from Trump.

I would say there's a 2/3rds chance the Doug Jones coalition is the future of the Democratic Party, but I could also see it being a cross between Connor Lamb and Bernie.

Yeah, the Doug Jones coalition that relies on the other candidate being a pedo, a racist, and a religious nutjob. I'll pass.

[YE]

Bernie certainly isn't William Jennings Bryan, but a Dem coalition that is economically "Bernie" and managed to take control of the federal government would have a very substantial wing that was Bryan-like (i.e. notably more socially conservative and publicly religious than 95% of elected Dems today).  I don't think Dems will ultimately go this route as it is the harder path back to a majority when they can just wait out Trump and ride the enhanced urban-rural divide to victory once they swing Phoenix, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, etc. toward them by another 5-10% without having to change much ideologically, but it's certainly a possibility that they target disenchanted populists who expected more from Trump.

I would say there's a 2/3rds chance the Doug Jones coalition is the future of the Democratic Party, but I could also see it being a cross between Connor Lamb and Bernie.

Good luck even getting 45 senate seats with that coalition.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

44% of Hispanics voted for Bush has been widely debunked

Source please

Leal, David L., Matt A. Barreto, Jongho Lee, and Rodolfo O. De La Garza. "The Latino Vote in the 2004 Election." PS: Political Science and Politics 38, no. 1 (2005): 41-49.

Bush Jr. probably got somewhere in the low-mid 30s among Latinos. Precinct data simply does not comport with the idea that he won 44% nationally.

Is this a joke? You seriously expect me to pay 25 dollars via something like this just to double check the counterclaim on exit polls?

I barely read as a proud American let alone am I willing to pay money on this sh**t.

It's free if you're on university wifi like me.  8]

[100% pro-life no matter what]

44% of Hispanics voted for Bush has been widely debunked

Source please

Leal, David L., Matt A. Barreto, Jongho Lee, and Rodolfo O. De La Garza. "The Latino Vote in the 2004 Election." PS: Political Science and Politics 38, no. 1 (2005): 41-49.

Bush Jr. probably got somewhere in the low-mid 30s among Latinos. Precinct data simply does not comport with the idea that he won 44% nationally.

Is this a joke? You seriously expect me to pay 25 dollars via something like this just to double check the counterclaim on exit polls?

I barely read as a proud American let alone am I willing to pay money on this sh**t.

Another problem with something like that is that it relies on the assumption that Latinos living in heavily-Latino precincts would have similar voting patterns to those living in majority-white ones, which I do not find to be a valid assumption.

Actually, I think the next big trend could be Latinos beginning to vote more Republican in the 2030s as the Democrats become even more socially liberal and as they assimilate and begin to consider themselves white.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Another problem with something like that is that it relies on the assumption that Latinos living in heavily-Latino precincts would have similar voting patterns to those living in majority-white ones, which I do not find to be a valid assumption.

Actually, I think the next big trend could be Latinos beginning to vote more Republican in the 2030s as the Democrats become even more socially liberal and as they assimilate and begin to consider themselves white.

Yeah that’s a good point as well. These two groups vote quite differently from one another so equating their voting patterns based on only one side’s data set is silly.

I highly doubt a former Governor of a heavily Latino state who spoke a lot about immigration reform, won Texas by 23 points in 04 while sweeping every state bordering the Rio Grande minus California (where he came within 10 points) + won Florida by 5, and received 35% of Latinos in 2000 somehow only got “low too mid 30’s” with this group in his reelection victory.

The math here just isn’t adding up otherwise.

Bush got at least 40 percent of the Hispanic vote in 04

[Beet]

44% of Hispanics voted for Bush has been widely debunked

Source please

Leal, David L., Matt A. Barreto, Jongho Lee, and Rodolfo O. De La Garza. "The Latino Vote in the 2004 Election." PS: Political Science and Politics 38, no. 1 (2005): 41-49.

Bush Jr. probably got somewhere in the low-mid 30s among Latinos. Precinct data simply does not comport with the idea that he won 44% nationally.

Is this a joke? You seriously expect me to pay 25 dollars via something like this just to double check the counterclaim on exit polls?

I barely read as a proud American let alone am I willing to pay money on this sh**t.

Another problem with something like that is that it relies on the assumption that Latinos living in heavily-Latino precincts would have similar voting patterns to those living in majority-white ones, which I do not find to be a valid assumption.

Actually, I think the next big trend could be Latinos beginning to vote more Republican in the 2030s as the Democrats become even more socially liberal and as they assimilate and begin to consider themselves white.

That may not happen as most Latinos (other than Cubans) look visibly non-white. Plus, the GOP is becoming more anti-Latino everyday. George Bush was practically a Democrat in his attitudes towards Latinos compared to today's GOP. That will leave a historical memory in the Latino consciousness.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

Bernie certainly isn't William Jennings Bryan, but a Dem coalition that is economically "Bernie" and managed to take control of the federal government would have a very substantial wing that was Bryan-like (i.e. notably more socially conservative and publicly religious than 95% of elected Dems today).  I don't think Dems will ultimately go this route as it is the harder path back to a majority when they can just wait out Trump and ride the enhanced urban-rural divide to victory once they swing Phoenix, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, etc. toward them by another 5-10% without having to change much ideologically, but it's certainly a possibility that they target disenchanted populists who expected more from Trump.

I would say there's a 2/3rds chance the Doug Jones coalition is the future of the Democratic Party, but I could also see it being a cross between Connor Lamb and Bernie.

Yeah, the Doug Jones coalition that relies on the other candidate being a pedo, a racist, and a religious nutjob. I'll pass.

I agree. And the Mormon thing won't happen now, but I believe a religious takeover for the dems is possible by 2040ish. And I'm pretty sure they won't be as socially conservative as they are today.

[Sadader]

44% of Hispanics voted for Bush has been widely debunked

Source please

Leal, David L., Matt A. Barreto, Jongho Lee, and Rodolfo O. De La Garza. "The Latino Vote in the 2004 Election." PS: Political Science and Politics 38, no. 1 (2005): 41-49.

Bush Jr. probably got somewhere in the low-mid 30s among Latinos. Precinct data simply does not comport with the idea that he won 44% nationally.

Is this a joke? You seriously expect me to pay 25 dollars just to double check the counterclaim on exit polls?

I barely read as a proud American let alone am I willing to pay money on this sh**t.

In general there really isn’t any reason for any layman to read academic papers like that one. The fact that the article exists and that it is reputable should be enough, you reading it serves absolutely no purpose since you won’t be able to discern it’s accuracy. The praxes in this thread are absolutely worthless.