Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 23, 2019, 02:37:18 pm
News: 2020 Presidential Predictions (General) are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: Silurian)
  GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Print
Author Topic: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era  (Read 2412 times)
Edgar Suit Larry
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,250
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: August 09, 2019, 06:04:46 pm »

Something will happen somewhere along the line that will hurt the dems and give gop an opening.

This board MUST ditch the insane idea that the dems will have a "lock" on the presidency. There has never been a party with a lock on the presidency. Ever.

I don't care what year it is or what the demographic makeup of the electorate is: if a dem is in power and a recession hits around election time, the dem will lose.

Do you guys not grasp that the single fastest growing preference is "unaffiliated"? People are fed up with both parties. Dems aren't exactly all sunshine and ice cream right now.

Also, their current coalition of fiscally conservative suburban whites and hardcore urban progressives will fall apart once trump leaves and is no longer common enemy.

This.

Parties change, realignments change.

The GOP will not be extinct.

We live in a two-party system, not a one-party utopia. Never have, never will--unless Americans are foolish to allow it.



I totally agree. This isn’t an if issue or even a when issue. It’s a how. There’s a spectrum for that between Trump being quickly discredited and being the next Carter, being slowly discredited like W., being able to have a minor legacy like H.W.,Clinton, him redefining the Republican Party like Obama did with the dems or him redefining redefining the system like Reagan. My guess is that he will eventually be discredited.
Logged
Skill and Chance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,367
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: August 10, 2019, 03:34:31 pm »

Something will happen somewhere along the line that will hurt the dems and give gop an opening.

This board MUST ditch the insane idea that the dems will have a "lock" on the presidency. There has never been a party with a lock on the presidency. Ever.

I don't care what year it is or what the demographic makeup of the electorate is: if a dem is in power and a recession hits around election time, the dem will lose.

Do you guys not grasp that the single fastest growing preference is "unaffiliated"? People are fed up with both parties. Dems aren't exactly all sunshine and ice cream right now.

Also, their current coalition of fiscally conservative suburban whites and hardcore urban progressives will fall apart once trump leaves and is no longer common enemy.

Historically, isn't generational dominance more likely than close elections with lots of flips?  1932-48 (5/0 D), 1896-1908 (4/0 R), 1860-1880 (6/0 R in election results, still 4/0 R without the complicated situation in 1864) and 1800-20 (6/0 DR) did happen.  Perhaps we are underrating the Republicans stay in the WH until 2032/Democrats in the WH from 2020-2036 scenarios?
Logged
538Electoral
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 676


P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: August 11, 2019, 06:21:04 am »

On the current path, I don't see a way forward.

Even a good map for the Republican is a losing map



Republican Party would have to be a very different party by then to win.

This assumes TX goes Democratic which I don't think will happen for a few more cycles and Republicans do have other options without TX anyway.
Logged
538Electoral
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 676


P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: August 11, 2019, 06:27:18 am »



There's still a clear path to 270 for the GOP beyond Trump. Stop acting like Republicans will never win after 2016 or 2020. Yes, I think AZ, TX and GA could narrowly stay Republican for a while after Trump.
Logged
AN63093
63093
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 734


Political Matrix
E: 0.06, S: 2.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: August 12, 2019, 12:11:33 pm »

I could see a 2040s-ish GOP win electoral map looking something like this:




Good map.  Something like that is my current guess for where the future coalitions will be.. I hesitate to say the path "beyond Trump-era" as the OP did, because of course, that presumes the Trump "era" is something that ends with his administration, as opposed to a indicator of where the parties are going.  So I will just say "the future."

One state I would probably flip is NJ.  I would also consider IL, which could become a swing state again- if we're talking about a 20-30+ year timeframe.  That is going to mainly depend on the Chicago area and whether it continues to lose population.  Obviously it's too early to make predictions as far that goes, but one possible path for Chicago's future is to follow in the footsteps of St Louis, in which case IL is certainly going to become a swing state again, it's just a matter of when.  Or Chicago could end up more like Minneapolis.  We'll see.

One other thing that's almost certain to happen is MS will flip by the 2040s, maybe earlier.  This has mainly to do with demographic change, which I won't go into right now since NC Yankee has already posted a lot of good stuff on this in another thread (which I'm too lazy to find at the moment).  I haven't done the math yet, but it's possible some other Deep South states will see the same dynamic, such as LA.
Logged
R.P. McM
Full Member
***
Posts: 206
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: August 13, 2019, 03:05:29 am »
« Edited: August 22, 2019, 05:53:26 am by R.P. McM »

Good map.  Something like that is my current guess for where the future coalitions will be.. I hesitate to say the path "beyond Trump-era" as the OP did, because of course, that presumes the Trump "era" is something that ends with his administration, as opposed to a indicator of where the parties are going.  So I will just say "the future."

One state I would probably flip is NJ.  I would also consider IL, which could become a swing state again- if we're talking about a 20-30+ year timeframe.  That is going to mainly depend on the Chicago area and whether it continues to lose population.  Obviously it's too early to make predictions as far that goes, but one possible path for Chicago's future is to follow in the footsteps of St Louis, in which case IL is certainly going to become a swing state again, it's just a matter of when.  Or Chicago could end up more like Minneapolis.  We'll see.

Assuming the present political/demographic trends hold, I don't see how that's possible. Cook County may be shrinking, but so is the rest of IL — at a faster rate. The Chicago MSA is actually increasing as a share of the state's total population. And the vote disparity is widening:
  ___
|CHI|       %/Pop. ┊   D-votes  ┊   R-votes   ┊  Margin
2000  .....  61.4% ┊ 1,655,582 ┊ 1,010,051 ┊  D+24
2016  .....  62.1% ┊ 2,210,378 ┊    964,274 ┊  D+39

Not exactly comparable to situation in St. Louis/MO:
  ___
|STL|       %/Pop. ┊  D-votes  ┊  R-votes  ┊  Margin
2000  .....  35.8% ┊  467,267 ┊  394,759 ┊   D+8
2016  .....  34.8% ┊  512,964 ┊  478,652 ┊   D+3

Obviously, the current trajectory isn't immutable. But if we plot a straight line from 2016, at no point does IL become competitive. The GOP would have to substantially narrow the gap in Chicagoland, and at the moment, the exact opposite is happening.
Logged
AN63093
63093
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 734


Political Matrix
E: 0.06, S: 2.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: August 13, 2019, 10:21:34 am »
« Edited: August 13, 2019, 10:35:44 am by AN63093 »

Yes, you are correct, assuming you plot a straight line- but that is what I am precisely not assuming.  In other words, I think, particularly in this case, that we can't assume present demographic trends hold.  The reason is because if you look at Rust Belt cities, e.g., Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, etc., you'll notice that they all follow a somewhat similar pattern in terms of population decline.  It starts off relatively small (maybe around -5%), but then it passes some critical point, where a vicious circle begins, the rate of decline starts increasing (up to the -20% range), and there is this mass exodus until the city stabilizes at a much smaller size.  In some cases, the decline is still ongoing (such as Detroit, which has lost over 60% of its population from a peak at around 1.85 million).  In other cases like Cleveland and Buffalo, they have started to plateau, but only after losing about 60% of their population (which is also about how much Detroit and St Louis has lost- we will see how much further they have to go).  

Now contrast to a city like Minneapolis, which has gone down a completely different path.  It appeared as if it was heading down the same route, and lost about 30% of its population in the 70s (like many other US cities), but the difference is, for whatever reason (I'm not going to address what it could be in this post), it turned things around and is now growing at >10%, such that it will be rebound to where it was in the 70s by the next census.

So what is the difference?  Well, I'm not exactly sure (I do think that Minneapolis is a much better run city than Chicago), but whatever it is- there does appear to be a critical point where the vicious circle kicks in- maybe one major industry leaves, then some people leave, which causes property values to go down, which causes property tax revenue to go down, which causes schools to decrease in quality, which causes the city to increase taxes to make up the shortfall, which causes more people to leave, which makes more industries want to leave to chase talent, and so on and so forth.  For any given city, there is a critical point where the floodgates will open- Minneapolis was able to turn things around before that point, Cleveland and St Louis were not.  

So what category is Chicago in?  I'm not sure, but I do think that the next 20-30 years will be very important for it and it is at high risk of passing that hypothetical "critical point" in the relatively near future.  And if it does, it's quite possible the decline will be rapid and perhaps irreversible.  At some point it looked like Chicago was going to weather this storm since it actually gained population in 2000, but then it declined again in 2010.  A better example of a large city that is stable is NYC, which had a drop in the 80s (again, like many other cities), but since then is consistently hitting a small % of growth- enough to keep it above 8 million.

I don't think the mere fact that Chicago is large will be enough to save it (although it helps).  Keep in mind that cities come and go (with the exception of NY, which has been #1 in the census every year since they started it)- many people do not realize this, but St Louis was once the 4th largest city in the US, Cleveland was in the top 10 for almost the entire 20th century, peaking at #5 (and only dropped out in the 80s), Detroit was the 4th largest city in the US for over 30 years, etc.  Heck, Buffalo was once in the top 10 (how many people reading this thread knew that?).  

It won't happen this census, but by next census, Houston is actually on track to pass Chicago as the third largest city.  Now I don't have a crystal ball, so who knows what will happen.  But right now, for reasons I'm not going to get into at the moment, I think there are indicators that Chicago is not going to stabilize in the way that NYC has, and certainly not turn things completely around like Minneapolis.  But who knows, maybe it will.  If it does, then yes- you are right, IL will stay D for the foreseeable future.  I do think the next couple decades will be critical for Chicago's future- we'll see what happens.
Logged
Edgar Suit Larry
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,250
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: August 13, 2019, 10:29:26 am »

Yes, you are correct, assuming you plot a straight line- but that is what I am precisely not assuming.  In other words, I think, particularly in this case, that we can't assume present demographic trends hold.  The reason is because if you look at Rust Belt cities, e.g., Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, etc., you'll notice that they all follow a somewhat similar pattern in terms of population decline.  It starts off relatively small (maybe around -5%), but then it passes some critical point, where a vicious circle begins, the rate of decline starts increasing (up to the -20% range), and there is this mass exodus until the city stabilizes at a much smaller size.  In some cases, the decline is still ongoing (such as Detroit, which has lost over 60% of its population from a peak at around 1.85 million).  In other cases like Cleveland and Buffalo, they have started to plateau, but only after losing about 60% of their population (which is also about how much Detroit and St Louis has lost- we will see how much further they have to go).  

Now contrast to a city like Minneapolis, which has gone down a completely different path.  It appeared as if it was heading down the same route, and lost about 30% of its population in the 70s (like many other US cities), but the difference is, for whatever reason (I'm not going to address what it could be in this post), it turned things around and is now growing at >10%, such that it will be rebound to where it was in the 70s by the next census.

So what is the difference?  Well, I'm not exactly sure (I do think that Minneapolis is a much better run city than Chicago), but whatever it is- there does appear to be a critical point where the vicious circle kicks in- maybe one major industry leaves, then some people leave, which causes property values to go down, which causes property tax revenue to go down, which causes schools to decrease in quality, which causes the city to need to increase taxes to make up a deficit, which causes more people to leave, which makes more industries want to leave to chase talent, and so on and so forth.  For any given city, there is a critical point where the floodgates will open- Minneapolis was able to turn things around before that point, Cleveland and St Louis were not.  

So what category is Chicago in?  I'm not sure, but I do think that the next 20-30 years will be very important for it and it is at high risk of passing that hypothetical "critical point" in the relatively near future.  And if it does, it's quite possible the decline will be rapid and perhaps irreversible.  At same point it looked like Chicago was going to weather this storm since it actually gained population in 2000, but then it declined again in 2010.  A better example of a large city that is stable is NYC, which had a drop in the 80s (again, like many other cities), but since then is consistently hitting a small % of growth- enough to keep it above 8 million.

I don't think the mere fact that Chicago is large will be enough to save it (although it helps).  Keep in mind that cities come and go (with the exception of NY, which has been #1 in the census every year since they started it)- many people do not realize this, but St Louis was once the 4th largest city in the US, Cleveland was in the top 10 for almost the entire 20th century, peaking at #5 (and only dropped out in the 80s), Detroit was the 4th largest city in the US for over 30 years, etc.  Heck, Buffalo was once in the top 10 (how many people reading this thread knew that?).  

It won't happen this census, but by next census, Houston is actually on track to pass Chicago as the third largest city.  Now I don't have a crystal ball, so who knows what will happen.  But right now, for reasons I'm not going to get into at the moment, I think there are indicators that Chicago is not going to stabilize in the way that NYC has, and certainly not turn things completely around like Minneapolis.  But who knows, maybe it will.  If it does, then yes- you are right, IL will stay D for the foreseeable future.  I do think the next couple decades will be critical for Chicago's future- we'll see what happens.

It has actually grown a little bit between 2010 and 2018. Who knows what that means, though. There's still a lot of construction downtown and even a new supertall is being built.
Logged
AN63093
63093
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 734


Political Matrix
E: 0.06, S: 2.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: August 13, 2019, 10:56:30 am »

Technically yes, but it's negligible (I think <0.5%), and may not even be that by the next census.  Still significantly below the national average.  Also, you have to look at the bigger picture.  If it was just the city that'd be one thing, but the surrounding area is shrinking as well.  Cook County is on track to lose population, the greater Chicago MSA (if it's lucky) will have a tiny bit of growth by the next census (<0.5%), Will County, which had some of the highest amount of growth in the area, is projected to hit almost no growth (this is after growing at >30% for several decades straight).  Same story in DuPage, same story in Lake County (it's actually conceivable that Lake loses population).. which I think is actually pretty important, because it means that this isn't just a case of white flight or whatever, it means that the affluent are no longer moving to the area either.. this indicates that the "elites" no longer see the Chicago area as a fashionable or desirable place to live, which will have a "trickle down" effect (ugh, I know, but I couldn't think of a better term).

This is all going to compound on itself and like I said, it will sneak up on people (and it won't be obvious until it's already well under way), but this means there is a high risk that the "critical point" I discussed above will be passed at some point in the next 20 years, and if does, I'm not sure that it's reversible.

New construction downtown is not particularly indicative of anything, I don't think.  Lakefront property around the Gold Coast, Near North Side, etc., is always going to be desirable.  Even in downtown Detroit you still have new development downtown and expensive condos going up, etc.  That's not really where you want to look for indicators of larger trends.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 43,185
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: August 14, 2019, 04:43:48 am »
« Edited: August 14, 2019, 05:03:36 am by Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee »

One other thing that's almost certain to happen is MS will flip by the 2040s, maybe earlier.  This has mainly to do with demographic change, which I won't go into right now since NC Yankee has already posted a lot of good stuff on this in another thread (which I'm too lazy to find at the moment).  I haven't done the math yet, but it's possible some other Deep South states will see the same dynamic, such as LA.

Mississippi was one of several states featured in a post by Adam Griffin in late 2016 which tracked the margin difference between the youngest voting demographic and the oldest demographic based off 2014 exit poll data.

You have to couple that with a realization that the Deep South's Republican lean is built off massive margins with Whites to offset the minority population's voting 95% Democratic. Unfortunately, the media stopped doing exit polling for every state and so the latest data we have to go on is 2012, but in that election in Mississippi the following results happened:

Whites 59%   Romney 89% Obama 11%
Blacks 36%    Obama 97%  Romney 2%

Whites in Mississippi vote more Republican than any other state in the country, more so than Alabama. Now in 2016, the black vote was down so that gave the illusion of everything being fine and Trump returned things to normal. The problem with this is that these Democratic voters didn't just vanish, they didn't turn out. Trump's voters on the other hand...

The key thing you realize is that Republican Support in the South is based not just on white support, but white boomer support. The thing that stands out from the Griffin post is the massive differential between older and younger voters. A good bit of this is diversification, but it is also generational change among white voters.

Most of the states that Democrats are going to gain in the sunbelt are those with higher educational attainment/greater secularization among whites, thus curbing white GOP margins and allowing strong Democratic support from growing minority communities to flip these states. Among these would be GA, TX and AZ, and also possibly Florida, SC and NC.  

The other states with less diversity and lower educational obtainment, Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas and Louisiana should hold up for the GOP for a good while unless some massive shift occurs.

Mississippi is the oddball because in terms of educational attainment it is clearly in the latter category, but the Democrats have a much higher floor there (assuming it turns out) than most other states with similar benchmarks. The state often gives the illusion of being more Republican than it actually is, but there is a vote out there that is about 43%-45% Democratic if you can motivate to turn out, which Obama did and Clinton did not. Republicans meanwhile peaked in 2008 and have lost votes in every election since. Mississippi, in spite of being so much better for Trump than Romney was a state where Trump actually got less votes than Romney did. I think it is fairly hard to argue that anyone is going to be better at turning out Mississippi White's than Trump. These voters aren't people not turning out, they are dying off.

Republicans are top heavy with Boomer whites (and Silents in MS's case) in every sunbelt state and while it is likely to presume that Mississippi whites will remain heavily Republican and probably even the most Republican in the nation, there is every reason to think that the number will ease downward slowly over the next few cycles, 85%, 82% etc.

In 2012, Romney won voters age 65 and up by a 78%-22% margin (similar to overall margin Goldwater got when basically only Whites could vote just throwing that out there). He won 45-64 55%-44% and 30-44 55%-44%. But Obama won the youngest voters: 55%-43%. Those same voters that were 65 and up in 2012 are now 72 and up in a state with some of the worst health scores and highest smoking rates. By 2040, they will be 93 and up, while the youngest voting demographic will have become the state's largest. Without the senior vote, Romney's margin drops to just ~3%

At Obama turnout levels a funny thing happens when the GOP gets below 80% with Whites:
59*79 + 36*3 = 47.69% + 5*.25 = 48.94%
59*21 + 36*97 = 47.32% + 5*.75 = 51.07%

It flips!!!

That still makes them the most Republican group of White Votes in the country. Interesting thing in the above scenario is that it is the Hispanic vote that gives the Democrats that final push over the GOP and over 50%.

So yea, post Trump, Mississippi will probably trend Democrat in every subsequent cycle until it flips probably by 2032.
Logged
AN63093
63093
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 734


Political Matrix
E: 0.06, S: 2.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: August 14, 2019, 11:26:05 am »

Superb post, NC Yankee.

Anyways (to tie this back to the thread topic), I think MB's map above serves as a generally good baseline/template to work off of, and then some minor changes can be made here and there.

One big one is what ends up happening in the Deep South, which you covered in great detail above and I don't have much to add except to say, once again, excellent analysis.

Another one is what the next few decades look like for Chicagoland, which I went into above, probably in more detail than anyone cares to read. Wink

One last one I mentioned, which I won't get into too deep right now, is that I don't know that NJ is going to follow the trend in New England.. and I have several reasons for that, but the main one is that I think NJ is actually poised to become a high growth state, particularly from more diverse millennial families that are leaving the city.  The millennials -> inner city trend is beginning to reverse back to suburbanization (many millennials will refuse to believe this, of course, but people are already writing about this and the data is out there), and NJ is pretty well positioned to benefit from it.  It had lackluster growth over the past ~40 years in many areas (or even a decline) due to- first, general decline in the Northeast, then second, retirees fleeing the area (mostly to FL) and then third, millennials leaving the suburbs for city living in the early 00s.  There are plenty of signs this is already beginning to reverse if you look at Union County, Essex County, etc.

So, interestingly, I think the map of the future may be something that we've never really seen in US history, although it would bear some resemblance to some of the maps of the late 1800s (obviously the coalitions would be very different).  I suspect the West Coast through the Southwest to TX will be the Dems strongest area from about the mid-21st century on.  The GOP's strongest area will be the plains and Midwest, much like it was throughout US history, with the caveat that we have to see what happens in the Chicago area.  The biggest battlegrounds will be the South and New England, with both parties having strength in different states in each- for the Dems, portions of the Deep South and Atlanta.. for the GOP, the interior South and some coastal areas (the Carolinas particularly).  The Dems will continue to be strong in MA and essentially the entire Mid-Atlantic (from VA/MD, up through NJ/NY, which will be another Dem "core" area), where the rest of New England will be either lean R or be strong R (e.g., ME).  

The map below is pretty close to what I posted a couple years ago in this thread, which is still generally where I think things are headed.  The only updates I've made to it are: a) I'm no longer sold on IL being D due to Chicago's decline and b) after doing some more demographic research, I think more Deep South states will have to be D.


Logged
Edgar Suit Larry
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,250
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: August 14, 2019, 12:20:40 pm »
« Edited: August 14, 2019, 12:37:42 pm by Edgar Suit Larry »

Superb post, NC Yankee.

Anyways (to tie this back to the thread topic), I think MB's map above serves as a generally good baseline/template to work off of, and then some minor changes can be made here and there.

One big one is what ends up happening in the Deep South, which you covered in great detail above and I don't have much to add except to say, once again, excellent analysis.

Another one is what the next few decades look like for Chicagoland, which I went into above, probably in more detail than anyone cares to read. Wink

One last one I mentioned, which I won't get into too deep right now, is that I don't know that NJ is going to follow the trend in New England.. and I have several reasons for that, but the main one is that I think NJ is actually poised to become a high growth state, particularly from more diverse millennial families that are leaving the city.  The millennials -> inner city trend is beginning to reverse back to suburbanization (many millennials will refuse to believe this, of course, but people are already writing about this and the data is out there), and NJ is pretty well positioned to benefit from it.  It had lackluster growth over the past ~40 years in many areas (or even a decline) due to- first, general decline in the Northeast, then second, retirees fleeing the area (mostly to FL) and then third, millennials leaving the suburbs for city living in the early 00s.  There are plenty of signs this is already beginning to reverse if you look at Union County, Essex County, etc.

So, interestingly, I think the map of the future may be something that we've never really seen in US history, although it would bear some resemblance to some of the maps of the late 1800s (obviously the coalitions would be very different).  I suspect the West Coast through the Southwest to TX will be the Dems strongest area from about the mid-21st century on.  The GOP's strongest area will be the plains and Midwest, much like it was throughout US history, with the caveat that we have to see what happens in the Chicago area.  The biggest battlegrounds will be the South and New England, with both parties having strength in different states in each- for the Dems, portions of the Deep South and Atlanta.. for the GOP, the interior South and some coastal areas (the Carolinas particularly).  The Dems will continue to be strong in MA and essentially the entire Mid-Atlantic (from VA/MD, up through NJ/NY, which will be another Dem "core" area), where the rest of New England will be either lean R or be strong R (e.g., ME).  

The map below is pretty close to what I posted a couple years ago in this thread, which is still generally where I think things are headed.  The only updates I've made to it are: a) I'm no longer sold on IL being D due to Chicago's decline and b) after doing some more demographic research, I think more Deep South states will have to be D.




I still don't think Vermont will flip because its already very rural. I'm not 100% sold on Connecticut but think its a possibility. Rhode Island might be an easier thing but still, I'll believe when I see it. I can see New England becoming like the Sun Belt is now by maybe the end of the next Democratic administration.


https://www.270towin.com/maps/N8rnW
This is what I have. Maybe as there are two or three more reapportionments, we won't need to handicap by giving rural Eastern and Southern NE to the Rs.

Strongest D map 2035-2060
https://www.270towin.com/maps/dQ6wn
https://www.270towin.com/maps/xLEm7 (closest D win in generations)


Strongest R map 2035-2060
https://www.270towin.com/maps/3oQWn (if they can start winning convincing NPV margins)
https://www.270towin.com/maps/Dbjd3 (more likely)
Logged
AN63093
63093
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 734


Political Matrix
E: 0.06, S: 2.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: August 14, 2019, 02:25:28 pm »
« Edited: August 14, 2019, 02:39:45 pm by AN63093 »

ESL- I like those maps; can't say I disagree with a whole lot.  Just a few things- I think even in a strong D victory, I wonder if MI will be winnable in 20 years.  I think it just depends on what happens in the Detroit area and if it continues to lose population.. if so, it's not inconceivable that it starts voting a lot more like IA or OH.  SC is another one- it'll be interesting to see what happens there because SC is one of the places where you actually see a high conservative influx (i.e., the Greenville area, which is growing at >10% and in large part is trending R).

Likewise, I do like your R win scenarios, though I have my little quibbles here and there (e.g., GA in 20 years could be one of the last states to vote R, even in a landslide situation.. I could see it staying D before even states like OR).  And I cannot conceive of a scenario like your second link where NC flips D before GA (again, this is in the future, not today).

As far as VT goes, well, you have to keep in mind that my map is LONG term.. i.e., I'm not making these predictions for 2020, or 2024, or even 2028.  I'm considering what may be happening once the baby boomer generation has almost ceased to exist and millennials are mostly in middle age, gen X is in retirement etc.

The reason why I think VT will flip (although it will still be close for a long time and probably won't be solid R in my lifetime) is simple- it has almost nothing in common with any of the demographics that are forming the Dems' core/future base.  VT is mostly older, rural, and just barely growing- we're talking like 0.1% (it is nearly last in the US).  It is the second whitest state in the country after ME (over 90%).  It is the third oldest (after ME and NH).  Honestly, if I went up to a random person and just told them to guess the state based on demographics without saying the name, you'd probably get answers like WV or ND or something.. no one would think, oh wait, that's VT.

The reason a lot of millennials will have trouble fathoming this, is because many of them grew up in the 90s and started voting (or at least "paying attention" to politics) in the 00s or Bush years.  So they associate the GOP with what were some of the strongest elements in the party at the time, which includes, e.g., Southern Evangelicals.  Given that, some have difficulty seeing how a state like VT would ever vote for the party of Southern Baptists etc., without stopping to wonder what would happen if the GOP was no longer associated with either Baptists or the South, and in fact, if it was now the Democrats who were winning most of the South.  That is a scenario that a lot of current millennials will be cognitively incapable of envisioning, even though it is actually underway- TX, GA, NC- all trending D.  Meanwhile VT (every county but 1), RI, NH, CT, ME- all trending R.  

And of course, people being born now and that will vote in 2040 will have none of the associations that millennials currently have with the GOP.  Something that is difficult to accept but is nonetheless true (and it's forgivable, people have a tendency to believe everything revolves around their own experiences, but in fact, the world does move on).  We see this already happening with the GOP, having nominated its least religious candidate since I can remember, and where the Religious Right had minimal (basically no) impact on the primary or general election, and is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the base.

Remember- maps change.  In 20 years, there will be states voting R that no one today is guessing.  20 years ago, KY, WV, AR, TN- all D states.  Maps that purport to predict the future but don't flip enough states are bad maps.
Logged
Edgar Suit Larry
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,250
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: August 14, 2019, 03:12:30 pm »

ESL- I like those maps; can't say I disagree with a whole lot.  Just a few things- I think even in a strong D victory, I wonder if MI will be winnable in 20 years.  I think it just depends on what happens in the Detroit area and if it continues to lose population.. if so, it's not inconceivable that it starts voting a lot more like IA or OH.  SC is another one- it'll be interesting to see what happens there because SC is one of the places where you actually see a high conservative influx (i.e., the Greenville area, which is growing at >10% and in large part is trending R).

Likewise, I do like your R win scenarios, though I have my little quibbles here and there (e.g., GA in 20 years could be one of the last states to vote R, even in a landslide situation.. I could see it staying D before even states like OR).  And I cannot conceive of a scenario like your second link where NC flips D before GA (again, this is in the future, not today).

As far as VT goes, well, you have to keep in mind that my map is LONG term.. i.e., I'm not making these predictions for 2020, or 2024, or even 2028.  I'm considering what may be happening once the baby boomer generation has almost ceased to exist and millennials are mostly in middle age, gen X is in retirement etc.

The reason why I think VT will flip (although it will still be close for a long time and probably won't be solid R in my lifetime) is simple- it has almost nothing in common with any of the demographics that are forming the Dems' core/future base.  VT is mostly older, rural, and just barely growing- we're talking like 0.1% (it is nearly last in the US).  It is the second whitest state in the country after ME (over 90%).  It is the third oldest (after ME and NH).  Honestly, if I went up to a random person and just told them to guess the state based on demographics without saying the name, you'd probably get answers like WV or ND or something.. no one would think, oh wait, that's VT.

The reason a lot of millennials will have trouble fathoming this, is because many of them grew up in the 90s and started voting (or at least "paying attention" to politics) in the 00s or Bush years.  So they associate the GOP with what were some of the strongest elements in the party at the time, which includes, e.g., Southern Evangelicals.  Given that, some have difficulty seeing how a state like VT would ever vote for the party of Southern Baptists etc., without stopping to wonder what would happen if the GOP was no longer associated with either Baptists or the South, and in fact, if it was now the Democrats who were winning most of the South.  That is a scenario that a lot of current millennials will be cognitively incapable of envisioning, even though it is actually underway- TX, GA, NC- all trending D.  Meanwhile VT (every county but 1), RI, NH, CT, ME- all trending R.  

And of course, people being born now and that will vote in 2040 will have none of the associations that millennials currently have with the GOP.  Something that is difficult to accept but is nonetheless true (and it's forgivable, people have a tendency to believe everything revolves around their own experiences, but in fact, the world does move on).  We see this already happening with the GOP, having nominated its least religious candidate since I can remember, and where the Religious Right had minimal (basically no) impact on the primary or general election, and is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the base.

Remember- maps change.  In 20 years, there will be states voting R that no one today is guessing.  20 years ago, KY, WV, AR, TN- all D states.  Maps that purport to predict the future but don't flip enough states are bad maps.

So the big questions are-

Will New England stay New England or will it be the new "Sun Belt" (going from being the base of its party to simply comprising its "fire wall"), "Great Lakes" (going from being reliable to one party to completely up in the air), or "Appalachia" (go from being the base of one party to being the base for the other)?

Will the Republicans be able to defend the rest of their "sunbelt firewall"(AZ,FL,TX,GA,NC), even as a couple of states in it are now just out of reach(CO,NM,NV,VA)?

Will the Rust Belt be able to hold on enough of its industries and large to remain a distinct battleground or will it simply become a rural body shop the same way the great planes or Appalachia has become? Pretty much reliant on artificially cheap labor and other costs of business?  Where the last shipping ports, banks, and factories are replaced by geriatric facilities, fulfillment centers and call centers? 

Logged
Anarcho-Statism
Full Member
***
Posts: 148
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: August 14, 2019, 10:10:13 pm »
« Edited: August 14, 2019, 10:19:21 pm by Anarcho-Statism »

The reason a lot of millennials will have trouble fathoming this, is because many of them grew up in the 90s and started voting (or at least "paying attention" to politics) in the 00s or Bush years.  So they associate the GOP with what were some of the strongest elements in the party at the time, which includes, e.g., Southern Evangelicals.  Given that, some have difficulty seeing how a state like VT would ever vote for the party of Southern Baptists etc., without stopping to wonder what would happen if the GOP was no longer associated with either Baptists or the South, and in fact, if it was now the Democrats who were winning most of the South.  That is a scenario that a lot of current millennials will be cognitively incapable of envisioning, even though it is actually underway- TX, GA, NC- all trending D.  Meanwhile VT (every county but 1), RI, NH, CT, ME- all trending R.  

And of course, people being born now and that will vote in 2040 will have none of the associations that millennials currently have with the GOP.  Something that is difficult to accept but is nonetheless true (and it's forgivable, people have a tendency to believe everything revolves around their own experiences, but in fact, the world does move on).  We see this already happening with the GOP, having nominated its least religious candidate since I can remember, and where the Religious Right had minimal (basically no) impact on the primary or general election, and is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the base.

Remember- maps change.  In 20 years, there will be states voting R that no one today is guessing.  20 years ago, KY, WV, AR, TN- all D states.  Maps that purport to predict the future but don't flip enough states are bad maps.

Call me crazy, I think this reasoning could be applied to the northwest, too. If we have a populist GOP, Oregon would go first. If the GOP shifts back to its late 19th century character- coalition built on the well-to-do neoliberals fleeing more conservative minorities and/or progressives in the Democratic Party- this could actually happen to Washington first.
Logged
darklordoftech
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,832
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: August 14, 2019, 10:42:48 pm »
« Edited: August 14, 2019, 10:46:17 pm by darklordoftech »

why be weak and accept blue GA?  Keep it red, no matter what.  A more favorable judiciary could help corrective measures be ruled constitutional.
If you were around in 1952, you’d be advocating “corrective measures” in order to bring back isolationism, Smoot-Hawley, and alcohol prohibition.
Logged
Kamala Harris is the REAL DEAL
Blairite
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: August 14, 2019, 10:44:08 pm »

The reason a lot of millennials will have trouble fathoming this, is because many of them grew up in the 90s and started voting (or at least "paying attention" to politics) in the 00s or Bush years.  So they associate the GOP with what were some of the strongest elements in the party at the time, which includes, e.g., Southern Evangelicals.  Given that, some have difficulty seeing how a state like VT would ever vote for the party of Southern Baptists etc., without stopping to wonder what would happen if the GOP was no longer associated with either Baptists or the South, and in fact, if it was now the Democrats who were winning most of the South.  That is a scenario that a lot of current millennials will be cognitively incapable of envisioning, even though it is actually underway- TX, GA, NC- all trending D.  Meanwhile VT (every county but 1), RI, NH, CT, ME- all trending R.  

And of course, people being born now and that will vote in 2040 will have none of the associations that millennials currently have with the GOP.  Something that is difficult to accept but is nonetheless true (and it's forgivable, people have a tendency to believe everything revolves around their own experiences, but in fact, the world does move on).  We see this already happening with the GOP, having nominated its least religious candidate since I can remember, and where the Religious Right had minimal (basically no) impact on the primary or general election, and is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the base.

Remember- maps change.  In 20 years, there will be states voting R that no one today is guessing.  20 years ago, KY, WV, AR, TN- all D states.  Maps that purport to predict the future but don't flip enough states are bad maps.

Call me crazy, I think this reasoning could be applied to the northwest, too. If we have a populist GOP, Oregon would go first. If the GOP shifts back to its late 19th century character- coalition built on the well-to-do neoliberals fleeing more conservative minorities and/or progressives in the Democratic Party- this could actually happen to Washington first.
Hell no. A couple of hippies doesn't change the fact that Oregon is (and is only getting moreso) metropolitain and international. Also, I don't get how Connecticut is supposed to go Republican. I think the corridor from Hartford to New Haven to Fairfield County will keep it blue for a long time.

In regards to Chicago population trends, it's pretty clear it isn't following the rest of the rustbelt. The Tribune (I think) did a piece on it recently, and basically every single neighborhood in the city with the exception of the Far South Side is growing--to a pretty rapid extent. The Far South Side is absolutely bleeding, but it's bottomed out and will eventually gentrify. Meanwhile, the rest of the city is booming and is poised to follow a New Yorkesque trend over the next decade which will easily cancel out the shrinking on the Far South Side. Chicago is pretty clearly a cosmopolitain agglomeration which is going to have a lot of relevance in the 21st century, and it's economic base, construction, and relevance to the global economy clearly shows signs of it having more in common with coastal metropolises than the surrounding Rust Belt.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,748


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: August 14, 2019, 10:48:55 pm »

The reason a lot of millennials will have trouble fathoming this, is because many of them grew up in the 90s and started voting (or at least "paying attention" to politics) in the 00s or Bush years.  So they associate the GOP with what were some of the strongest elements in the party at the time, which includes, e.g., Southern Evangelicals.  Given that, some have difficulty seeing how a state like VT would ever vote for the party of Southern Baptists etc., without stopping to wonder what would happen if the GOP was no longer associated with either Baptists or the South, and in fact, if it was now the Democrats who were winning most of the South.  That is a scenario that a lot of current millennials will be cognitively incapable of envisioning, even though it is actually underway- TX, GA, NC- all trending D.  Meanwhile VT (every county but 1), RI, NH, CT, ME- all trending R.  

And of course, people being born now and that will vote in 2040 will have none of the associations that millennials currently have with the GOP.  Something that is difficult to accept but is nonetheless true (and it's forgivable, people have a tendency to believe everything revolves around their own experiences, but in fact, the world does move on).  We see this already happening with the GOP, having nominated its least religious candidate since I can remember, and where the Religious Right had minimal (basically no) impact on the primary or general election, and is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the base.

Remember- maps change.  In 20 years, there will be states voting R that no one today is guessing.  20 years ago, KY, WV, AR, TN- all D states.  Maps that purport to predict the future but don't flip enough states are bad maps.

Call me crazy, I think this reasoning could be applied to the northwest, too. If we have a populist GOP, Oregon would go first. If the GOP shifts back to its late 19th century character- coalition built on the well-to-do neoliberals fleeing more conservative minorities and/or progressives in the Democratic Party- this could actually happen to Washington first.
Hell no. A couple of hippies doesn't change the fact that Oregon is (and is only getting moreso) metropolitain and international. Also, I don't get how Connecticut is supposed to go Republican. I think the corridor from Hartford to New Haven to Fairfield County will keep it blue for a long time.

In regards to Chicago population trends, it's pretty clear it isn't following the rest of the rustbelt. The Tribune (I think) did a piece on it recently, and basically every single neighborhood in the city with the exception of the Far South Side is growing--to a pretty rapid extent. The Far South Side is absolutely bleeding, but it's bottomed out and will eventually gentrify. Meanwhile, the rest of the city is booming and is poised to follow a New Yorkesque trend over the next decade which will easily cancel out the shrinking on the Far South Side. Chicago is pretty clearly a cosmopolitain agglomeration which is going to have a lot of relevance in the 21st century, and it's economic base, construction, and relevance to the global economy clearly shows signs of it having more in common with coastal metropolises than the surrounding Rust Belt.


Current trends won’t last beyond 2028 at the latest . By the 2030s many of the trends what happen then will be unrecognizable to us today
Logged
Cory Booker
olawakandi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26,602
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: August 14, 2019, 11:17:20 pm »

Trump did everything to secure the blue wall wont crack, I dont know what old school Republican mean, Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee and Los Angeles arent gonna leave the state. Those states are union based states. We will see what happens when Trump leaves office, but future isnt good for GOP post Trump
Logged
Anarcho-Statism
Full Member
***
Posts: 148
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: August 14, 2019, 11:19:16 pm »

Current trends won’t last beyond 2028 at the latest . By the 2030s many of the trends what happen then will be unrecognizable to us today

Wise! Who's to say the Republicans don't reabsorb free trade and surge in the gentrified cities while still losing areas with poor minorities? Or, that coalitions rise based on automation? Or a huge credit crunch-based depression? Or over intervention in the complicated ideological environment of a collapsed post-Putin Russia? Maybe new technology or Democratic legislation totally kills coal, and big tech moves in to totally renovate West Virginia. Maybe Silicon Valley rusts away and California becomes susceptible to populism. Maybe an OPEC embargo causes America to go completely self-reliant on oil, causing North Dakota to become a cosmopolitan boomtown.

To those who laugh at the outlandish: danger of extrapolation.
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 309
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.00, S: 3.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: August 14, 2019, 11:51:55 pm »

why be weak and accept blue GA?  Keep it red, no matter what.  A more favorable judiciary could help corrective measures be ruled constitutional.
If you were around in 1952, you’d be advocating “corrective measures” in order to bring back isolationism, Smoot-Hawley, and alcohol prohibition.
I'm a non interventionist, economic nationalist (we should punish outsourcing), but fine with alcohol.
Logged
AN63093
63093
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 734


Political Matrix
E: 0.06, S: 2.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: August 15, 2019, 12:42:51 pm »

The reason a lot of millennials will have trouble fathoming this, is because many of them grew up in the 90s and started voting (or at least "paying attention" to politics) in the 00s or Bush years.  So they associate the GOP with what were some of the strongest elements in the party at the time, which includes, e.g., Southern Evangelicals.  Given that, some have difficulty seeing how a state like VT would ever vote for the party of Southern Baptists etc., without stopping to wonder what would happen if the GOP was no longer associated with either Baptists or the South, and in fact, if it was now the Democrats who were winning most of the South.  That is a scenario that a lot of current millennials will be cognitively incapable of envisioning, even though it is actually underway- TX, GA, NC- all trending D.  Meanwhile VT (every county but 1), RI, NH, CT, ME- all trending R.  

And of course, people being born now and that will vote in 2040 will have none of the associations that millennials currently have with the GOP.  Something that is difficult to accept but is nonetheless true (and it's forgivable, people have a tendency to believe everything revolves around their own experiences, but in fact, the world does move on).  We see this already happening with the GOP, having nominated its least religious candidate since I can remember, and where the Religious Right had minimal (basically no) impact on the primary or general election, and is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the base.

Remember- maps change.  In 20 years, there will be states voting R that no one today is guessing.  20 years ago, KY, WV, AR, TN- all D states.  Maps that purport to predict the future but don't flip enough states are bad maps.

Call me crazy, I think this reasoning could be applied to the northwest, too. If we have a populist GOP, Oregon would go first. If the GOP shifts back to its late 19th century character- coalition built on the well-to-do neoliberals fleeing more conservative minorities and/or progressives in the Democratic Party- this could actually happen to Washington first.

I thought about that as well, and I go back and forth on it.  The reason why I think the pacific NW will be distinct is because even though some areas share characteristics of places like New England, there are two large metro areas (in Portland and Seattle) that are two of the top MSAs in the US in growth (particularly Seattle, which is hitting >15%) and this growth consists of mostly demographics that are D leaning to strong D (such as white progressives, etc.).  There isn't a single metro area in the Northeast that shares those characteristics, except to some extent Boston (which is why I think MA will stay D even if New England largely does not).
Logged
AN63093
63093
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 734


Political Matrix
E: 0.06, S: 2.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: August 15, 2019, 01:10:30 pm »

The reason a lot of millennials will have trouble fathoming this, is because many of them grew up in the 90s and started voting (or at least "paying attention" to politics) in the 00s or Bush years.  So they associate the GOP with what were some of the strongest elements in the party at the time, which includes, e.g., Southern Evangelicals.  Given that, some have difficulty seeing how a state like VT would ever vote for the party of Southern Baptists etc., without stopping to wonder what would happen if the GOP was no longer associated with either Baptists or the South, and in fact, if it was now the Democrats who were winning most of the South.  That is a scenario that a lot of current millennials will be cognitively incapable of envisioning, even though it is actually underway- TX, GA, NC- all trending D.  Meanwhile VT (every county but 1), RI, NH, CT, ME- all trending R.  

And of course, people being born now and that will vote in 2040 will have none of the associations that millennials currently have with the GOP.  Something that is difficult to accept but is nonetheless true (and it's forgivable, people have a tendency to believe everything revolves around their own experiences, but in fact, the world does move on).  We see this already happening with the GOP, having nominated its least religious candidate since I can remember, and where the Religious Right had minimal (basically no) impact on the primary or general election, and is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the base.

Remember- maps change.  In 20 years, there will be states voting R that no one today is guessing.  20 years ago, KY, WV, AR, TN- all D states.  Maps that purport to predict the future but don't flip enough states are bad maps.

Call me crazy, I think this reasoning could be applied to the northwest, too. If we have a populist GOP, Oregon would go first. If the GOP shifts back to its late 19th century character- coalition built on the well-to-do neoliberals fleeing more conservative minorities and/or progressives in the Democratic Party- this could actually happen to Washington first.
Hell no. A couple of hippies doesn't change the fact that Oregon is (and is only getting moreso) metropolitain and international. Also, I don't get how Connecticut is supposed to go Republican. I think the corridor from Hartford to New Haven to Fairfield County will keep it blue for a long time.

In regards to Chicago population trends, it's pretty clear it isn't following the rest of the rustbelt. The Tribune (I think) did a piece on it recently, and basically every single neighborhood in the city with the exception of the Far South Side is growing--to a pretty rapid extent. The Far South Side is absolutely bleeding, but it's bottomed out and will eventually gentrify. Meanwhile, the rest of the city is booming and is poised to follow a New Yorkesque trend over the next decade which will easily cancel out the shrinking on the Far South Side. Chicago is pretty clearly a cosmopolitain agglomeration which is going to have a lot of relevance in the 21st century, and it's economic base, construction, and relevance to the global economy clearly shows signs of it having more in common with coastal metropolises than the surrounding Rust Belt.

Do you have a link for this article?  If you are describing it accurately, then I question the methodology, since every figure I listed above indicates that Chicago is not about to enter a period of high growth.  If so, perhaps you can enlighten me as to why every county in the MSA is shrinking or stagnant, including Lake County, DuPage etc., (so neither the inner city, nor the suburbs- regardless of socioeconomic level, are growing), and why the Chicago MSA is only hitting 0.4% growth (contrast to, say, Houston, which is at an eye-popping 18%).  I think it's pretty obvious which one of these is going to end up having more relevance in the 21st century.  In fact, the Chicago MSA is the slowest growing metro in the entire top 20, one of the slowest in the top 50 even.. only 4 others are slower- Pittsburgh (shrinking at 1.34%), Buffalo (shrinking at 0.47%), Hartford (shrinking at 0.5%) and Cleveland (shrinking at 0.97%).

Your post has a lot of irrelevant fluff in it (like, e.g., Chicago will continue to be a "cosmopolitain agglomeration".. um, I wasn't arguing that Chicago won't be cosmopolitan?... also you spelled cosmopolitan wrong).  If we're attempting to project demographic trends of an urban area, I think I'm going to go ahead and stick with the data and numbers over your pontificating.  But if you actually have any numbers to present, I'd be happy to re-assess my position.
Logged
Kamala Harris is the REAL DEAL
Blairite
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: August 15, 2019, 11:26:10 pm »

The reason a lot of millennials will have trouble fathoming this, is because many of them grew up in the 90s and started voting (or at least "paying attention" to politics) in the 00s or Bush years.  So they associate the GOP with what were some of the strongest elements in the party at the time, which includes, e.g., Southern Evangelicals.  Given that, some have difficulty seeing how a state like VT would ever vote for the party of Southern Baptists etc., without stopping to wonder what would happen if the GOP was no longer associated with either Baptists or the South, and in fact, if it was now the Democrats who were winning most of the South.  That is a scenario that a lot of current millennials will be cognitively incapable of envisioning, even though it is actually underway- TX, GA, NC- all trending D.  Meanwhile VT (every county but 1), RI, NH, CT, ME- all trending R.  

And of course, people being born now and that will vote in 2040 will have none of the associations that millennials currently have with the GOP.  Something that is difficult to accept but is nonetheless true (and it's forgivable, people have a tendency to believe everything revolves around their own experiences, but in fact, the world does move on).  We see this already happening with the GOP, having nominated its least religious candidate since I can remember, and where the Religious Right had minimal (basically no) impact on the primary or general election, and is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the base.

Remember- maps change.  In 20 years, there will be states voting R that no one today is guessing.  20 years ago, KY, WV, AR, TN- all D states.  Maps that purport to predict the future but don't flip enough states are bad maps.

Call me crazy, I think this reasoning could be applied to the northwest, too. If we have a populist GOP, Oregon would go first. If the GOP shifts back to its late 19th century character- coalition built on the well-to-do neoliberals fleeing more conservative minorities and/or progressives in the Democratic Party- this could actually happen to Washington first.
Hell no. A couple of hippies doesn't change the fact that Oregon is (and is only getting moreso) metropolitain and international. Also, I don't get how Connecticut is supposed to go Republican. I think the corridor from Hartford to New Haven to Fairfield County will keep it blue for a long time.

In regards to Chicago population trends, it's pretty clear it isn't following the rest of the rustbelt. The Tribune (I think) did a piece on it recently, and basically every single neighborhood in the city with the exception of the Far South Side is growing--to a pretty rapid extent. The Far South Side is absolutely bleeding, but it's bottomed out and will eventually gentrify. Meanwhile, the rest of the city is booming and is poised to follow a New Yorkesque trend over the next decade which will easily cancel out the shrinking on the Far South Side. Chicago is pretty clearly a cosmopolitain agglomeration which is going to have a lot of relevance in the 21st century, and it's economic base, construction, and relevance to the global economy clearly shows signs of it having more in common with coastal metropolises than the surrounding Rust Belt.

Do you have a link for this article?  If you are describing it accurately, then I question the methodology, since every figure I listed above indicates that Chicago is not about to enter a period of high growth.  If so, perhaps you can enlighten me as to why every county in the MSA is shrinking or stagnant, including Lake County, DuPage etc., (so neither the inner city, nor the suburbs- regardless of socioeconomic level, are growing), and why the Chicago MSA is only hitting 0.4% growth (contrast to, say, Houston, which is at an eye-popping 18%).  I think it's pretty obvious which one of these is going to end up having more relevance in the 21st century.  In fact, the Chicago MSA is the slowest growing metro in the entire top 20, one of the slowest in the top 50 even.. only 4 others are slower- Pittsburgh (shrinking at 1.34%), Buffalo (shrinking at 0.47%), Hartford (shrinking at 0.5%) and Cleveland (shrinking at 0.97%).

Your post has a lot of irrelevant fluff in it (like, e.g., Chicago will continue to be a "cosmopolitain agglomeration".. um, I wasn't arguing that Chicago won't be cosmopolitan?... also you spelled cosmopolitan wrong).  If we're attempting to project demographic trends of an urban area, I think I'm going to go ahead and stick with the data and numbers over your pontificating.  But if you actually have any numbers to present, I'd be happy to re-assess my position.
Screw my awful phone. Anyway, this is the article: https://www.google.com/amp/s/chicago.suntimes.com/platform/amp/columnists/2019/7/28/8928935/chicago-seven-cities-neighborhoods-ed-zotti-city-crossroads
Basically, this data puts Chicago in the same place as New York was in the '90s and early '00s. The city was starting to clean up, massive new development was starting for an influx of yuppies, corporations were relocating from the suburbs back to Manhattan, and the wealth base of the city was swelling but it wasn't reflected in the population growth rates yet because black neighborhoods were still emptying out and family sizes were plummeting. The same trends are at play in Chicago now, and the reason I say it's cosmopolitan and globally in a way other cities like St Louis or Cleveland aren't is grounded in real data. The corporate base is too strong to move away, college graduates are swarming into the city, the people moving in are richer than the ones moving out, construction in the Loop is at an unprecedented high and formerly declining neighborhoods are growing again. All the signs of growth are coming into place.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 43,185
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: August 16, 2019, 02:19:16 am »
« Edited: August 16, 2019, 02:23:48 am by Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee »

If the Republicans continue on its Northern trajectory, it will be via hinging around non-college whites, so the areas with the highest concentrations of non-college whites will flip first or harden if they already have. These would become the new "Base states" and then you have to look and find what demographics are easiest to flip to get you a majority either in a particular state or in the nation as whole.

Practically speaking we are already there since Trump won 66% with non-college whites, while losing college educated whites. Trump cobbled together a majority (of the EC) by minimizing the bleeding with the 2000s GOP base, sunbelt-evangelical suburbs, but if those voters are no longer viable paths (ie, they are dead or being outvoted by minority-millennial coalitions), you have to find alternative routes.

The number one rule is that whoever they go for, it will be the group that requires the party to change the least and that also will factor in who is the next Democratic President and what their focus is.

The easiest group to augment non-college whites would be Midwest suburban voters, particularly those suburbs that are lacking in diversity. This secures that region (save Illinois). These suburbs lack the pressures (see my post above about top heaviness with Boomer whites to offset minority margins) that are long term threatening the GOP in Texas and Georgia and would be more likely to bounce back afterwards. The GOP didn't lose any suburban House seats in Wisconsin or Ohio in 2018 (and yes gerrys were a factor of course), but even looking at the county results for Governor: DeWine did better than Trump in Delaware County, Walker did better in Wow, and Rauner did better in the collar counties. By contrast Kemp did worse than Trump in Cobb and Gwinnett. McSally did worse in Maricopa and Cruz did worse in Tarrant.

Granted these were Governor and Senate races, but we are seeing a level of GOP resilience in that area even with Trump as President that could translate into better performances post Trump, which leaves the GOP as a more Rust belt/Midwest centric party over the course of the next decade. This would invariably translate into candidates who by necessity of survival have to successfully combine Trump level support with non-college whites, and decent college white support in the suburbs. This would invariably translate into better performances over time in Illinois (~40s) and after a couple of cycles being shut out trying to go the GA/TX route (call it the sunbelt blue wall in a future scenario), throwing some money into Illinois begins to look appealing. Throw in some third party vote splitting and a narrow 48%-46% win in the 2030's isn't unreasonable.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC