Should I take this as a retraction of your “An election doesn’t disprove anything by itself” claim?
Only if you took him seriously that he retracted a belief because of a single data point.
Maybe an explanation is in order as I don’t use emojis.
In a word, no. How would that belief be constructed even by an internet conservative?
An election often doesn’t disprove anything, but I do think the idea of an “electoral wall” was pretty soundly disproven, although it’s not hard to disprove something that was a stupid hypothesis to begin with. The idea of a “blue wall” was based almost entirely on Obama’s performance in two elections.
The “blue wall” claim has a kernel of truth to it though: there are more sure thing Democratic electoral votes on the map than sure thing Republican electoral votes. Republicans have less margin for error. But as we saw in November, if the public wants change, there will be change, regardless of candidate quality or inherent electoral advantages.
It’s becoming more of an urban-rural divide than regional, though there are some states that neither side will ever lose. You can pencil in AK, AZ, ID, MT, UT, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, AR, LA, MS, AL, GA, SC, TN, KY, IN, and WV in for Republicans. The Democrats can bank on HI, WA, OR, CA, NV, NM, CO, MN, IL, NY, MA, NJ, VT, RI, CT, DE, MD, and DC. So you start off 212-181 D before candidates are even chosen. The thing is, none of the blue states are purpling up while demographics and urbanization are making some red states purple and some purple states red. Were it not for a quarter century of lies about Hillary plus the collaboration of the KGB, FBI, and KKK, we’d be celebrating the inauguration of a president and not a five year old man-child with ADHD.
I’m not even sure that’s true anymore. Which states are you calling"Sure thing Democratic" EVs, and which “sure thing Republican”?
Trump won one of Maine’s electoral college votes.
Last 3 Prez elections in reverse chronological order - 2016 2012 1008
NV: D/R
47.9 / 45.5
52.4 / 45.7
55.1 / 42.7
NM: D/R
48.3 / 40.0
53.0 / 42.8
56.9 / 41.8
MN: D/R
46.4 / 44.9
52.7 / 45.0
54.1 / 43.8
That’s some definite “purpling up”.
Well, any state is winnable except for DC if the candidate is right. If Republicans nominated a moderate, nice, charismatic guy against a weak Democrat, you’d probably see many unthinkable states go red, if only just for that election. I don’t think we’re at the point where any state is totally unwinnable. It’s just that such candidates are rare and Republicans haven’t had one since Reagan. But with the right(or wrong candidate on the other side), you could still see a 49-state win by someone.
You’re wrong about no blue states purpling up. The Industrial Midwest has become more competitive for Republicans and we saw this trend before Trump with governors and Senators’ races. West Virginia and Missouri are now bright red where before West Virginia was willing to vote for Democrats and Missouri was a true bellwether. There are more red states leaning purple than vice versa, so you’re right-ish, but some states have gone the opposite way. Oh yeah, Iowa too is looking a lot redder in the last few years.
I think what you’re seeing is an anomaly in 2016. There was no comparison in the enthusiasm. Republicans would have crawled over hot coals, broken glass, and barbed wire in the nude in the freezing rain to vote against Hillary. Thanks to the FBI and KGB working in concert to keep phony scandals alive, Democratic voters were less enthused.
I think there are more uncontestable states. No Democrat will ever win UT, WY, or the stack of states above TX. TX itself could become winnable if the Hispanic population continues to grow and the next administration abuses its power. (ha ha, if). No Republican will ever win DE, DC, MD, NJ, CT, or RI.
It’s possible that it’s an anomaly like Obama’s level of support. But again, some of these states have gotten redder since 2010, not just 2016. Which is still too short a time period to be sure, but we’ll know a lot more in the coming years.
They do win statewide on occasion, it’s all about selecting candidates who can win there. Of course, that means moderate Republicans, but Trump kinda showed the way there. Most conservatives don’t care about ideology anymore, they care about hating Democrats. I could see a Republican more in agreement with Barack Obama on the issues than George Bush getting nominated as long as he says enough nasty things about Democrats.
In the 1990s, the Electoral College was described as a natural gerrymander against Democrats, and that’s even more true today.
One thing is quite telling though: The Red Wall went for Trump even though Trump was Trump. Had the Democrats nominated a liberal version of Trump, then even Blue-Wall states such as New Jersey, Washington State or Colorado might have come into play. Democrats are more prone to fracturing than Republicans are, due to big-tentedness.
Trump would have needed 50,479 Delware…ians(?) to switch their vote from HRC to him to win. Clinton won Delaware by 11 points. I don’t know why you would think a 12-point swing is an impossibility. For example, Ohio went from a 3-point Obama win in 2012 to a 9-point Trump win in 2016. That’s the exact same 12-point swing that would be required for a Republican to win Delaware.
As the Democrat/Republican split becomes more and more an urban/rural split, it’s going to intensify for a while. The Electoral College effectively makes sparsely populated states votes count for more.
On the other hand, if urbanization continues enough, then either demographics will overwhelm this effect (it doesn’t matter if one party gets all the 3-vote states if the other gets all the 15+ vote states. There simply aren’t enough of them), or even the sparsely populated states will be sufficiently urban to flip.
Which probably just means a realignment of the parties.
And that’s the real answer. There’s no blue wall, there’s no red wall. There’s no demographic destiny. Because the parties realign. Look at how quickly the Republican Party effectively abandoned their massive anti-gay strategy. Sure, they’re still pushing it at the margins by passing laws that say individual bakers and hoteliers can refuse service in some narrow ways, but as far as returning to DOMA and Bowers v. Hardwick, the fight is over. Because it’s such a massive loser with the group of voters expected to be alive for the next election. It was never raised as an issue in this Presidential election, and while there are certainly plenty of Republicans who are opposed to gay marriage, they’re mostly awfully wishy-washy about making public statements to that effect unless they live in very red districts. All of a sudden that major wedge issue that spelled disaster for the Republican party went away. Other issues will too as people change their minds about things.