When will DC go republican?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I was referencing it the amount of blacks that live in DC, Baltimore metro areas and their opposition to gun rights.

[Deblano]

Based on fivethirtyeight's demographic calculator, Republicans can win DC if they win over.....91% of the African-American vote!

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/

One way you could get DC to vote Republican is if you make an alternate realingment in the past where the Democrats are still strongly Dixiecrat, while the GOP is a more centrist to center-left party with a strong coalition of minorities following the Civil Rights movement.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

When will Sioux County ND go Republican?

[Metalhead123]

Perhaps if the ghost of Marion Barry runs for president DC would be somewhat competitive

[Wazza [INACTIVE]]

Jacob Javits is resurrected as the Republican nominee and Harry F Byrd Sr. is resurrected as the Democratic Nominee.

[RINO Tom]

Jacob Javits is resurrected as the Republican nominee and Harry F Byrd Sr. is resurrected as the Democratic Nominee.

Byrd would win DC with about 60%.

[Agonized-Statism]

Realignment. Make the GOP a "big government" party and the Democrats a "small government" party. Possible in a situation where the Republicans win elections for long enough to become a big tent.

[Del Tachi]

Based on fivethirtyeight's demographic calculator, Republicans can win DC if they win over.....91% of the African-American vote!

Presumably, this is because the 43% White electorate in D.C. votes something like 9-to-1 Democrat per the 538 numbers, making DC the most "White liberal" city in the country (even more than Seattle or San Francisco, I bet).  When it comes to winning D.C., the GOP is probably better off going for moderate swings among Blacks and urban Whites rather than extreme swings in one group or the other.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Jacob Javits is resurrected as the Republican nominee and Harry F Byrd Sr. is resurrected as the Democratic Nominee.

Byrd would win DC with about 60%.

[President Johnson]

Never. It may have in 1976 if it was Rockefeller vs. Wallace

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Never. It may have in 1976 if it was Rockefeller vs. Wallace

By 1976, Wallace was already starting to moderate his racial views, so I doubt he would have lost DC.


I think he would have lost it in 1972 if he had been the Democratic nominee vs. Nixon, however.

[Wazza [INACTIVE]]

Jacob Javits is resurrected as the Republican nominee and Harry F Byrd Sr. is resurrected as the Democratic Nominee.

Byrd would win DC with about 60%.

Why? Harry Byrd (D-VA) was not only a segregationist but had a right wing voting record as well. Whilst Jacob Javits (R-NY) was a strong supporter of civil rights with a left wing voting record (He was the most left wing Republican in the senate and was endorsed by the Liberal Party of NY in many of his senatorial runs). Byrd has 0 ideological appeal in DC other than the D next to his name whilst Javits has a considerable amount of ideological appeal other than the R next to his name. You think African-American partisan loyalty would remain monolithic enough in such a situation for the Democrats to carry it?

Just to clarify I'm not talking about Robert Byrd from West Virginia, who probably would of still carried it despite his positions on segregation considering his left wing voting record.

[OBD]

Never. It would be flooded before then.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I'm going to say not in the 21st Century, if ever.  I could theoretically see the black vote becoming more Republican, but it wouldn't be uniform.  For instance, it might make sense for Republicans to start winning rural Southern black voters, but that wouldn't make a huge difference in somewhere like DC.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

I'm going to say not in the 21st Century, if ever.  I could theoretically see the black vote becoming more Republican, but it wouldn't be uniform.  For instance, it might make sense for Republicans to start winning rural Southern black voters, but that wouldn't make a huge difference in somewhere like DC.

As someone else pointed out, in order for DC to go Republican, the Republican would have to win 91% of the black vote nationally - because white voters in DC are still extremely Democratic, and make up 43% of the population.

[CatoMinor]

When rising sea levels swallow the city and a new capital district is carved out of a central location on the Kansas/Missouri border.

[RINO Tom]

Jacob Javits is resurrected as the Republican nominee and Harry F Byrd Sr. is resurrected as the Democratic Nominee.

Byrd would win DC with about 60%.

Why? Harry Byrd (D-VA) was not only a segregationist but had a right wing voting record as well. Whilst Jacob Javits (R-NY) was a strong supporter of civil rights with a left wing voting record (He was the most left wing Republican in the senate and was endorsed by the Liberal Party of NY in many of his senatorial runs). Byrd has 0 ideological appeal in DC other than the D next to his name whilst Javits has a considerable amount of ideological appeal other than the R next to his name. You think African-American partisan loyalty would remain monolithic enough in such a situation for the Democrats to carry it?

Just to clarify I'm not talking about Robert Byrd from West Virginia, who probably would of still carried it despite his positions on segregation considering his left wing voting record.

I think if either won their nomination, they would effectively be viewed as that party's nominee and little else.  Blacks voted overwhelmingly for a Democratic ticket with a segregationist on it over a fairly pro-civil rights Eisenhower ticket in the 1950s.  Black-GOP relations were already souring by the early 1900s, and the Great Depression cemented the idea in many Black voters' heads that there WASN'T any such thing as a truly pro-civil rights politician, and the Democratic Party - via its very existence - was a better instrument for the working class, regardless of its ranks.  40% would be an extremely good performance for a Republican, mind you...

I'm going to say not in the 21st Century, if ever.  I could theoretically see the black vote becoming more Republican, but it wouldn't be uniform.  For instance, it might make sense for Republicans to start winning rural Southern black voters, but that wouldn't make a huge difference in somewhere like DC.

As someone else pointed out, in order for DC to go Republican, the Republican would have to win 91% of the black vote nationally - because white voters in DC are still extremely Democratic, and make up 43% of the population.

These assumptions are absurd.  They honestly take on a bit of an unintentionally semi-racist tone that Black voters would flip by the tens of thousands before their ideologically principled White liberal counterparts would move at all ... any Republican who won D.C. would improve DRASTICALLY with Whites.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

I'm going to say not in the 21st Century, if ever.  I could theoretically see the black vote becoming more Republican, but it wouldn't be uniform.  For instance, it might make sense for Republicans to start winning rural Southern black voters, but that wouldn't make a huge difference in somewhere like DC.

As someone else pointed out, in order for DC to go Republican, the Republican would have to win 91% of the black vote nationally - because white voters in DC are still extremely Democratic, and make up 43% of the population.

These assumptions are absurd.  They honestly take on a bit of an unintentionally semi-racist tone that Black voters would flip by the tens of thousands before their ideologically principled White liberal counterparts would move at all ... any Republican who won D.C. would improve DRASTICALLY with Whites.
[/quote]

Well, it's hard to imagine a Republican improving so much in the white vote, nationally, that they win DC without winning a wide majority of the black vote.

Unless DC whites specifically swing much harder to the right that than white voters nationally, but I can't imagine a scenario where that happens because white voters in DC are clearly very inelastic, perhaps more so than black voters in DC.

[ElectionsGuy]

"Never say never" but DC is the antithesis of the Republican party in just about every way. I don't think it will vote Republican anytime in the next 50 years so long as our two-party system stays in place.

[Wazza [INACTIVE]]

Jacob Javits is resurrected as the Republican nominee and Harry F Byrd Sr. is resurrected as the Democratic Nominee.

Byrd would win DC with about 60%.

Why? Harry Byrd (D-VA) was not only a segregationist but had a right wing voting record as well. Whilst Jacob Javits (R-NY) was a strong supporter of civil rights with a left wing voting record (He was the most left wing Republican in the senate and was endorsed by the Liberal Party of NY in many of his senatorial runs). Byrd has 0 ideological appeal in DC other than the D next to his name whilst Javits has a considerable amount of ideological appeal other than the R next to his name. You think African-American partisan loyalty would remain monolithic enough in such a situation for the Democrats to carry it?

Just to clarify I'm not talking about Robert Byrd from West Virginia, who probably would of still carried it despite his positions on segregation considering his left wing voting record.

I think if either won their nomination, they would effectively be viewed as that party's nominee and little else.  Blacks voted overwhelmingly for a Democratic ticket with a segregationist on it over a fairly pro-civil rights Eisenhower ticket in the 1950s.  Black-GOP relations were already souring by the early 1900s, and the Great Depression cemented the idea in many Black voters' heads that there WASN'T any such thing as a truly pro-civil rights politician, and the Democratic Party - via its very existence - was a better instrument for the working class, regardless of its ranks.  40% would be an extremely good performance for a Republican, mind you...

I'm not too sure about that. During Jacob Javit's senate races he was able to make significant inroads in Democratic strongholds like Manhattan and the Bronx, which he won in 62 and 68 respectively (By around that time the Bronx had very sizeable Hispanic and African-American populations), which showed his appeal with both Urban liberals and minorities even against also Liberal Democratic opponents. Running against a Harry Byrd, a Dixiecrat with an overall right wing voting record, would amplify this effect significantly IMO. You can also see this appeal in other races with Liberal Republicans like Winthrop Rockefeller and John Lindsay (another NY Republican who got endorsed by the Liberal Party), who managed to gain significant support amongst African-Americans.

Ike indeed did lose the black vote by a considerable margin in 52. However, Ike was clearly to the right of both Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman. Its not just about their civil rights records, but records on economic policy and overall social policy for the left-wing Republican and the Thurmondesque Democrat. I think such a situation would get the R's over 50% in DC.

[QAnonKelly]

Not in our lifetimes

[DabbingSanta]

Never

[S019]

Not in our lifetimes

[IceSpear]

When the parties switch again like they did after the Civil Rights Act.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Not in our lifetime