By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Let's have a bit of fun for a moment and imagine a future where Texas turns blue. Not saying this will happen this way, but I want to illustrate a point about how huge turning Texas blue is.

The year is 2032. After two terms of Bernie, AOC ran in 2028 and is running for reelection. Millennials are by far the biggest voting block now, and it shows. She won thanks to historic Latino support, swinging Texas decidely into her column, the first election it became clear the state was now blue, not purple, and it's only become more blue since. New Mexico has simlarly followed suit, a election or two before Texas in fact. Nevada is also not a swing state anymore, though some pundits had been telling us that for over a decade. The Reid machine is alive and well there and bolstered by ever stronger Latino support, Nevada is untouchable. The Republican party is essentially dead in California and Hawaii, and close to it in Oregon and Washington. Chicago keeps Illinois blue forever, and the Midwest states of PA, WI, and MI have swung back with MN. They still look like swing states, but usually go blue. Baltimore keeps Maryland blue, NYC keeps New York bluer than ever. New Jersey is still pretty blue, as is Massachusettes, and Bernie has turned Vermont blue for the foreseeable future even as the world moves on from his era. DC is a state now, and is the bluest of all. Some of these states lost electoral votes in the 2020 and 2030 census, but Texas gained them back, so for simplicity's sake imagine that the states I've named so far are worth about the same as they are now. These 18 states are all Democrats would need for 273 EVs. Speculation in the Trump era that Connecticut, Delaware, and Rhode Island might one day swing red due to an aging white population came true and Maine and New Hampshire are swing states that swung red, and Arizona and Georgia never panned out, Virginia was lost again for similar reasons to New England and Florida went red thanks to white retirees. Yet even with the old blue wall collapsing, and gains in the south lost, Texas is all Democrats needed to make the presidency untouchable for Republicans.

Fast forward to 2036. AOC endorses a successor. We've now had 16 years of Democratic rule. Trumpism is finally dying out, and Republicans run a moderate. However, the Latino vote is pretty solidly in the Democrats corner now, and demographic change puts even more of the southern border in Democrats' hands. This time, we do get Arizona, and enough old boomer retirees have died that Florida swings back blue again to a younger, more Latino electorate with Cuban descendants of Castro refugees no longer afraid of socialism. Hawaii and California are still one party states, and Washington and Oregon never had their Republicans recover. Texas, Nevada, and New Mexico are still blue. Georgia finally swings blue as the state has grown increasingly more black and less white. The urbanites of DC, Maryland, Illinois, Massachusettes, New York, and New Jersey keep their states blue, and Vermont is still blue from Bernie. The whole midwest outside of Chicago swings red now, MN has gone red for the first time since FDR. Yet even with the entire midwest lost, with just the Mexico border, west coast, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Vermont, and a handful of urban states, with just 16 states and DC, Democrats have the presidency again with 273 EVs.

I personally think these are on the extremely, unrealistically bad end of things for Democrats if they turn Texas blue. I just pretended Republicans always won Colorado somehow, and Virginia is NOT likely to be red all the time. It might not even be purple in the future. Georgia will probably turn and stay blue well before 2036, because it is highly polarized and inelastic in its voting patterns and change is mostly driven by demographics, which are trending our way with no end in sight. North Carolina will probably follow Georgia and Virginia to the blue side. New England will probably stay blue even as its population ages. Add those states in, and any Democrat that wins the midwest, which will probably stay swing states and not go red, will win between 332 and well over 400 possible EVs. With the executive branch that untouchably blue for that long, the Judicial branch would end up deep blue as well. I don't see a Republican party that can't ever control two out of three branches even by going moderate being able to survive long term. If we get Texas blue, something fundamental will have to change about politics for Democrats to not control basically everything forever. Republicans going the way of the Whigs and a Democratic party split into progressive and corporate factions that become their own parties seems the most likely outcome to me. Again, assuming we can turn Texas blue in the next decade, and especially if we turn it blue in 2020.

Thanks for listening to my TED talk.



Around the Network

Russia is allegedly trying to help Bernie win the primary.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/bernie-sanders-briefed-by-us-officials-that-russia-is-trying-to-help-his-presidential-campaign/2020/02/21/5ad396a6-54bd-11ea-929a-64efa7482a77_story.html
This could explain some of the toxic Bernie Bros on Twitter. They could be Russian bots.



NightlyPoe said:
HylianSwordsman said:

Let's have a bit of fun for a moment and imagine a future where Texas turns blue. Not saying this will happen this way, but I want to illustrate a point about how huge turning Texas blue is.

The year is 2032. After two terms of Bernie, AOC ran in 2028 and is running for reelection. Millennials are by far the biggest voting block now, and it shows. She won thanks to historic Latino support, swinging Texas decidely into her column, the first election it became clear the state was now blue, not purple, and it's only become more blue since. New Mexico has simlarly followed suit, a election or two before Texas in fact. Nevada is also not a swing state anymore, though some pundits had been telling us that for over a decade. The Reid machine is alive and well there and bolstered by ever stronger Latino support, Nevada is untouchable. The Republican party is essentially dead in California and Hawaii, and close to it in Oregon and Washington. Chicago keeps Illinois blue forever, and the Midwest states of PA, WI, and MI have swung back with MN. They still look like swing states, but usually go blue. Baltimore keeps Maryland blue, NYC keeps New York bluer than ever. New Jersey is still pretty blue, as is Massachusettes, and Bernie has turned Vermont blue for the foreseeable future even as the world moves on from his era. DC is a state now, and is the bluest of all. Some of these states lost electoral votes in the 2020 and 2030 census, but Texas gained them back, so for simplicity's sake imagine that the states I've named so far are worth about the same as they are now. These 18 states are all Democrats would need for 273 EVs. Speculation in the Trump era that Connecticut, Delaware, and Rhode Island might one day swing red due to an aging white population came true and Maine and New Hampshire are swing states that swung red, and Arizona and Georgia never panned out, Virginia was lost again for similar reasons to New England and Florida went red thanks to white retirees. Yet even with the old blue wall collapsing, and gains in the south lost, Texas is all Democrats needed to make the presidency untouchable for Republicans.

Fast forward to 2036. AOC endorses a successor. We've now had 16 years of Democratic rule. Trumpism is finally dying out, and Republicans run a moderate. However, the Latino vote is pretty solidly in the Democrats corner now, and demographic change puts even more of the southern border in Democrats' hands. This time, we do get Arizona, and enough old boomer retirees have died that Florida swings back blue again to a younger, more Latino electorate with Cuban descendants of Castro refugees no longer afraid of socialism. Hawaii and California are still one party states, and Washington and Oregon never had their Republicans recover. Texas, Nevada, and New Mexico are still blue. Georgia finally swings blue as the state has grown increasingly more black and less white. The urbanites of DC, Maryland, Illinois, Massachusettes, New York, and New Jersey keep their states blue, and Vermont is still blue from Bernie. The whole midwest outside of Chicago swings red now, MN has gone red for the first time since FDR. Yet even with the entire midwest lost, with just the Mexico border, west coast, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Vermont, and a handful of urban states, with just 16 states and DC, Democrats have the presidency again with 273 EVs.

I personally think these are on the extremely, unrealistically bad end of things for Democrats if they turn Texas blue. I just pretended Republicans always won Colorado somehow, and Virginia is NOT likely to be red all the time. It might not even be purple in the future. Georgia will probably turn and stay blue well before 2036, because it is highly polarized and inelastic in its voting patterns and change is mostly driven by demographics, which are trending our way with no end in sight. North Carolina will probably follow Georgia and Virginia to the blue side. New England will probably stay blue even as its population ages. Add those states in, and any Democrat that wins the midwest, which will probably stay swing states and not go red, will win between 332 and well over 400 possible EVs. With the executive branch that untouchably blue for that long, the Judicial branch would end up deep blue as well. I don't see a Republican party that can't ever control two out of three branches even by going moderate being able to survive long term. If we get Texas blue, something fundamental will have to change about politics for Democrats to not control basically everything forever. Republicans going the way of the Whigs and a Democratic party split into progressive and corporate factions that become their own parties seems the most likely outcome to me. Again, assuming we can turn Texas blue in the next decade, and especially if we turn it blue in 2020.

Thanks for listening to my TED talk.

Demographics as destiny beliefs that you'll win forever are almost always shattered by reality.  Democrats thought they'd win forever thanks to the Roosevelt coalition.  They didn't.  Republicans thought if they took the South, Democrats would have no path.  It didn't happen.  Democrats thought in 2008 that the Obama coalition would be ascendant forever.  Instead Trump won.  Indeed, it's arguable that the political calculations of the Bush and Obama years that relied on demographics ended up creating the Trump coalition that broke down already established political pattern.

In other words, don't assume you're going to take over the world.  This country has been a metronome, switching presidents every 8 years since the 1940s.  Let's create a rule of thumb.  Every 8 years the United States changes the party of its president.  Check out this chart.  I'm going to start in 1944 and give the Democrats 2 wins, followed by Republicans getting two wins, followed by Democrats by 2, and so on.

Election Year Predicted Winner
1944 Democrat
1948 Democrat
1952 Republican
1956 Republican
1960 Democrat
1964 Democrat
1968 Republican
1972 Republican
1976 Democrat
1980 Democrat
1984 Republican
1988 Republican
1992 Democrat
1996 Democrat
2000 Republican
2004 Republican
2008 Democrat
2012 Democrat
2016 Republican

Now, let's create another chart with the actual results and see how the two stack up:

Election Year Predicted Winner Actual Winner Was our prediction correct?
1944 Democrat Roosevelt (D) Yes
1948 Democrat Truman (D) Yes
1952 Republican Eisenhower (R) Yes
1956 Republican Eisenhower (R) Yes
1960 Democrat Kennedy (D) Yes
1964 Democrat Johnson (D) Yes
1968 Republican Nixon (R) Yes
1972 Republican Nixon (R) Yes
1976 Democrat Carter (D) Yes
1980 Democrat Reagan (R) No
1984 Republican Reagan (R) Yes
1988 Republican Bush (R) Yes
1992 Democrat Clinton (D) Yes
1996 Democrat Clinton (D) Yes
2000 Republican Bush (R) Yes
2004 Republican Bush (R) Yes
2008 Democrat Obama (D) Yes
2012 Democrat Obama (D) Yes
2016 Republican Trump (R) Yes

That simple formula correctly predicts 18 of the past 19 presidential elections going back 76 years to WWII and before the Baby Boom generation was even born.  I have no trouble believing that the pattern will not hold up permanently (Trump may lose this year, a Republican might win a 3rd term 2024), but I have extreme doubts that it will shatter and one party will become dominant.

Basically this. If a state like Texas goes blue there are other states trending red like Wisconsin,  Rhode Island,  New Hampshire etc. The electoral map we have now might be different than the one in 2032. Some states will flip to the other party and the parties wont be the same as they are today. They will adapt with the times to adopt policies that they can win on to stay competitive. 



NightlyPoe said:

Demographics as destiny beliefs that you'll win forever are almost always shattered by reality.  Democrats thought they'd win forever thanks to the Roosevelt coalition.  They didn't.  Republicans thought if they took the South, Democrats would have no path.  It didn't happen.  Democrats thought in 2008 that the Obama coalition would be ascendant forever.  Instead Trump won.  Indeed, it's arguable that the political calculations of the Bush and Obama years that relied on demographics ended up creating the Trump coalition that broke down already established political pattern.

In other words, don't assume you're going to take over the world.  This country has been a metronome, switching presidents every 8 years since the 1940s.  Let's create a rule of thumb.  Every 8 years the United States changes the party of its president.  Check out this chart.  I'm going to start in 1944 and give the Democrats 2 wins, followed by Republicans getting two wins, followed by Democrats by 2, and so on.

That simple formula correctly predicts 18 of the past 19 presidential elections going back 76 years to WWII and before the Baby Boom generation was even born.  I have no trouble believing that the pattern will not hold up permanently (Trump may lose this year, a Republican might win a 3rd term 2024), but I have extreme doubts that it will shatter and one party will become dominant.

Very nice, you went back to the 4th term of FDR to make your claim. 

Lets go back a bit further:

1828 Andrew Jackson Democratic
1832 Andrew Jackson Democratic
1836 Martin Van Buren Democratic
1840 William Henry Harrison Whig
1844 James Polk Democratic
1848 Zachary Tayloy Whig
1852 Franklin Pierce Democratic
1856 James Buchanan Democratic
1860 Abraham Lincoln Republican
1864 Abraham Lincoln Republican
1868 Ulysses S. Grant Republican
1872 Ulysses S. Grant Republican
1876 Rutherford B. Hayes Republican
1880 James Garfield Republican
1884 Grover Cleveland Democratic 
1888 Benjamin Harrison Republican
1892 Grover Cleveland Democratic
1896 William McKinley Republican
1900 William McKinley Republican
1904 Theodore Roosevelt Republican
1908 William Howard Taft Republican
1912 Woodrow Wilson Democratic (thanks to TR running as Progressive)
1916 Woodrow Wilson Democratic
1920 Warren G. Harding Republican
1924 Calvin Coolidge Republican
1928 Herbert Hoover Republican
1932 FDR Democratic
1936 FDR Democratic
1940 FDR  Democratic
1944 FDR Democratic
1948 Harry Truman Democratic

See how two can play at this game? From 1828 to 1860 it was mostly Democratic rule with occasional Whig interruption, from 1860 to 1932, there was even stronger Republican dominance with occasional Democratic interruption, and then we had a generation of straight Democratic rule. I'm not suggesting just a simple "demographic destiny" argument, I'm suggesting a whole new "Party System". The advent of a Seventh Party System. The First Party System was from the founding of the republic until Andrew Jackson, Federalist and Jeffersonian Republicans trading back and forth. The Second Party System was from Andrew Jackson until the Civil War, Democrats and Whigs trading back and forth with strong Democratic dominance. The Third Party System was from Abraham Lincoln until 1900, Republican dominance with occassional Democratic interruption. The Fourth Party System was from 1900 with Teddy Roosevelt as VP until the Great Depression, known as the progressive era, with the labor movement and the start of the welfare state, progressives being a major force in both parties and a party unto themselves, until Republican corporatism brought down the economy. The Fifth Party System was the New Deal coalition of FDR's Democratic Party vs. the Republican party, with only Republican moderates that in some respects are to the left of present day Democratic moderates, at least on the economy (Eisenhower's 90% tax rate, anyone?) able to beat Democrats, and this lasted until the Republicans started the Southern Strategy with Nixon in response to the Civil Rights Movement, in what became the Sixth Party System, which produced the predictable fluctuations between the parties you describe, due to the polarization that strategy caused.

I'm suggesting a Seventh Party System may be just beginning, with Republicans increasingly beholden to Trumpian coalitions of aggrieved old white conservative Christians and white supremacists, mostly rural, while the Democrats tie together a coalition of every major non-white racial group, as well as non-Christian whites of all ages and more progressive white Christians as well, a dominant coalition that will hold until either the Republican party collapses or finally takes the risk of leaving their Trumpian coalition in the cold and actually trying to appeal to some part of the Democrats' coalition. This isn't "demographic destiny" but rather coalition building, using demographics that make up a strong majority trending stronger instead of a weak minority trending weaker. 



jason1637 said:

Basically this. If a state like Texas goes blue there are other states trending red like Wisconsin,  Rhode Island,  New Hampshire etc. The electoral map we have now might be different than the one in 2032. Some states will flip to the other party and the parties wont be the same as they are today. They will adapt with the times to adopt policies that they can win on to stay competitive. 

I just laid out how even the entire midwest going red won't be enough to save the Republicans, and threw in a theoretical unproven New England collapse of the blue wall, and threw in Democrats losing their southern gains, and it still wasn't enough to save Republicans. What states are left that are sufficiently non-urbanized with sufficient EVs to counteract what I've described? Of course the parties won't be the same as they are today. That's what's happening now that's causing all this! The Republicans won't even get New England or the midwest in the long term if they don't abandon Trumpism. As I said to Poe, it's not just demographic destiny, it's the way the parties have appealed to their coalitions, and how the Republican party has alienated such a powerful coalition of various demographics, and how the ones they've alienated the most and thus would have the most difficulty getting back through "adapting with the times" are the demographics that will be the strongest in the future. There's no guarantee that Republicans would even try to shift moderate, not when their current coalition is threatening civil war and has gone over the epistemological cliff and is no longer moored to reality. It'll be a generation at least until enough of the old Republicans have died such that more moderate young Republicans could ever have enough control of the party to craft a coherent moderate message.



Around the Network

https://news3lv.com/news/local/pigeons-with-hats-are-back-in-las-vegas-this-time-with-maga-flare

Poor Pigeons...



NightlyPoe said:


Yes, I understand that you believe a coalition based on prejudice, tribalism, and hate will carry you into unlimited victories in the future, but the snap back can happen so fast as to make your head spin.

That's not the Democrats buddy. What are you even doing in this thread? Clearly you aren't here to have an honest discussion if this is what you think.



Bofferbrauer2 said:
https://news3lv.com/news/local/pigeons-with-hats-are-back-in-las-vegas-this-time-with-maga-flare

Poor Pigeons...

Did you mean to post in the general politics thread?



NightlyPoe said:
HylianSwordsman said:

That's not the Democrats buddy. What are you even doing in this thread? Clearly you aren't here to have an honest discussion if this is what you think.

That's exactly what you're advocating as a winning coalition.  You just advanced a long theory on it.

You think winning progressive Christians, all non-white groups, and all white non-Christian groups is a coalition based on "prejudice, tribalism, and hate"? It's the polar opposite. You're projecting.



HylianSwordsman said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:
https://news3lv.com/news/local/pigeons-with-hats-are-back-in-las-vegas-this-time-with-maga-flare

Poor Pigeons...

Did you mean to post in the general politics thread?

Well, it showed up in a live ticker about the Nevada caucus, so I'd say it was related. But it could have better fit there, yeah.