What Would It Take To Turn Red States Blue?

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@China_Guy

Wouldn’t one of the biggest disruptors of turning red states to blue as per the OP would be to have a kindergarten class (or an unbiased arbitrator) redraw districting lines to something that makes geographic sense? AKA remove egregious gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering’s part of the problem but a lot of it is the distribution of Democratic vs. Republican voters.

@Sputnikkk

What Would It Take To Turn Red States Blue? More Republicans dying of old age… http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/the-gop-is-dying-off-literally-118035 There are less registered republicans every year because the average age of republicans is much older than the average age of democrats and they are dying off.
So if we just wait a little longer for the old republicans die off naturally the red states might turn blue. Republicans in the media also aren’t attracting new younger members. Fox has an older audience and they are losing ratings- in part because they are dying.

Republicans need to remain old fashioned and humorless.
Shows like Fox aren’t funny, young people are watching Bill Maher and John Stewart, not fox news. Why aren’t any Republicans funny or cool? I can think of lots of funny politically motivated democrat comedians, Jon Stewart, John Oliver, Bill Maher but Republicans just are never funny or even interesting. There was Rush Limbaugh (unless he’s died) but he isn’t really funny or cool and now he is old, people like my grandparents used to watch him and now they are dead.

So to turn Red states Blue Republicans in the media, just have to keep being themselves- old, unattractive, and uncool so as not to attract young voters, and keep dying of old age.

This post is literally the embodiment of everything wrong with Millennial liberalism.

[Do_Not_Taunt]

@Stoneburg

Since liberalism seems to be connected to higher education I’d suggest raising the level of education would be an effective way to change the demographic towards blue.

@adaher

Education would actually turn blue states red, unless you could make people getting postgraduate degrees the norm.

Cite that the relationship between education and voting pattern is causal and not just correlative?

@DSeid

How much harder could the Black vote move to Clinton than it did to Obama?

And I’l believe something can get the Latino vote out in numbers when I see it.

First of all, I’m assuming that your plan of swinging hard for the non-college educated whites is going to necessarily be highly offensive to non-white voters, and likely to college-educated whites as well. Even if you assume black turnout and share remains the same, it takes a very small bump in either dimension for the other groups to get back to a Democratic win. If Republicans can swing six point on non-college educated whites without pushing other groups the other way, of course they should do that. But I don’t think they can, and that’s why this plan ends up a loser.

FWIW, I don’t even think Republicans could get a six-point swing here - it’s a large demographic, and that’s a large move.

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

There’s nothing wrong with most of the Democratic platform. They just need to persuade middle America that this is the right path to go down. Where they make concessions, it should be on economic issues and foreign policy, not social issues.

Quite the reverse. As I’ve been saying for years, the Dems need to downplay the social liberalism and emphasize the economic populism. The eventual victory of the social-liberal agenda is guaranteed by generational demographics; the victory of the social-democratic economic agenda is not, and the opposition to it is much better funded and organized and entrenched.

[BrainGlutton]

@Lance_Turbo

**What Would It Take To Turn Red States Blue? **

They could try holding their breath . . .

[RTFirefly]

Here’s what I did with 538’s neat toy:

1. I left Asian and Hispanic turnout at current levels, but I increased the Dem vote share of both groups by 5%. Lindsay Graham’s critique is right: the message that Hispanics get is that Republicans don’t like them.

2. I left Dem vote share of Blacks where it was, but decreased their turnout from 66% to 60%.

3. I left white college-educated turnout where it was, but upped the Republican vote share by 2 points, from 56% to 58%.

4. I upped the non-college-educated white turnout and GOP vote share rather substantially. I took the GOP vote share up by 3 points, from 62% to 65%, and I raised their turnout by 7 points, from 57% to 64%.

The result? Dems win the popular vote, 49.3% to 49.0%, and win the EC, 275-263.

At that point, pretty much any more changes GOP-ward (including lower turnout by pro-Dem groups or higher turnout by pro-GOP groups) push the election into the GOP column, but gives a pretty good sense that the Dems can lose a lot of ground relative to 2012 and still win the White House.

[sleestak]

@Stoneburg

I was writing my previous post before you responded but I’ll respond to this as well.

People with VERY low education, development or social status will tend to vote for liberals because of base selfish needs. They are basically the “welfare kings and queens” that the conservatives don’t like. So when you add them to the equation you get (roughly):

RED - Liberals
BLUE - Conservatives
ORANGE - Either
GREEN - Liberals

So interestingly liberal politicians get their votes from both the highest and the lowest education levels, whereas conservative ones get their from the middle.

What an amazing load of horseshit.

Slee

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@sleestak

What an amazing load of horseshit.

Slee

Yes, thankfully he has been suspended.

[DSeid]

@Do_Not_Taunt

… First of all, I’m assuming that your plan of swinging hard for the non-college educated whites is going to necessarily be highly offensive to non-white voters, and likely to college-educated whites as well. Even if you assume black turnout and share remains the same, it takes a very small bump in either dimension for the other groups to get back to a Democratic win. If Republicans can swing six point on non-college educated whites without pushing other groups the other way, of course they should do that. But I don’t think they can, and that’s why this plan ends up a loser.

FWIW, I don’t even think Republicans could get a six-point swing here - it’s a large demographic, and that’s a large move.

Yes, offensive … at least to my ear. Big on anti-immigrant and strong on crime/support of police, using every code word they can think of and sometimes slipping out of code.

The play would be to try to get the rural white vote, heavily non-college educated, to come out in numbers still less than White college educated (about the same as Black) but significantly more than they have before by completely and cravenly pandering to them. The gambit is that the Black vote is pretty much already as all-in Democratic as it can be and that even that won’t be enough to get the Hispanic vote off its collective ass. White college educated is already a huge turn out group and I used the share of that demographic going down by as much as the White non college educated went up. gain, difference only being that White non-college educated turn out increases.

Would it work? Well like you point out, it is a big shift and it would need to a big pander. But the thing is that barring a horrible democratic candidate and a fairly universally popular GOP one (a Reagan v Mondale level election) it is the least unlikely long shot they got. Play with the app … the alternative is to increase Hispanic share and Black share significantly while not losing any of that White non-college educated turn out or share:

Move Black to 16% GOP (94% D) with turn out down to 58% … and
Move Hispanic to 43% GOP (57% D) with turn out down to 43% …

and GOP wins with 272 EVs.

(from Black 93D/66%turnout and Hispanic 71D/48% turnout)

That’s the shift they need by appealing more to Blacks and Hispanics … or less and also move college educated Whites more into their camp than the 56% they already are …

Each of those are bigger asks yet, no?

[DSeid]

And doing that without losing any of the White non-college educated vote or turn out remember …

and that was 84% not 94% D in the Black one … sorry.

[adaher]

@RTFirefly

Here’s what I did with 538’s neat toy:

1. I left Asian and Hispanic turnout at current levels, but I increased the Dem vote share of both groups by 5%. Lindsay Graham’s critique is right: the message that Hispanics get is that Republicans don’t like them.

2. I left Dem vote share of Blacks where it was, but decreased their turnout from 66% to 60%.

3. I left white college-educated turnout where it was, but upped the Republican vote share by 2 points, from 56% to 58%.

4. I upped the non-college-educated white turnout and GOP vote share rather substantially. I took the GOP vote share up by 3 points, from 62% to 65%, and I raised their turnout by 7 points, from 57% to 64%.

The result? Dems win the popular vote, 49.3% to 49.0%, and win the EC, 275-263.

At that point, pretty much any more changes GOP-ward (including lower turnout by pro-Dem groups or higher turnout by pro-GOP groups) push the election into the GOP column, but gives a pretty good sense that the Dems can lose a lot of ground relative to 2012 and still win the White House.

Well, they won by 3%, so there’s nothing mathematically surprising about that. Problem is, I don’t think Democrats have come up with an adequate reason yet why Democrats did worse in 2012 rather than better. If the Democrats can lose 4-5 points between 2008 and 2012, no reason they can’t lose 4-5 points between 2012 and 2016.

The other problem with your assumption is that you put Latinos and Asians even more against the GOP than in 2012, when the GOP had record poor performance among those groups. You’re also assuming black levels of support for Obama will transfer to Clinton, although you do expect turnout to drop.

Things can actually get a lot worse for Democrats. Especially once terrorism gets thrown into the mix, where the GOP has a traditional advantage which the President is doing nothing to fix. Doesn’t matter what your demographics are, national security moves votes for the Republicans across the board. So just take your figures, give the GOP an extra 2-3% in every category, and there’s your 2016 result.

[RTFirefly]

@adaher

Well, they won by 3%, so there’s nothing mathematically surprising about that. Problem is, I don’t think Democrats have come up with an adequate reason yet why Democrats did worse in 2012 rather than better. If the Democrats can lose 4-5 points between 2008 and 2012, no reason they can’t lose 4-5 points between 2012 and 2016.

First of all, the facts: Obama won by 7.24% in 2008, and by 3.86% in 2012. So he lost 3.38% between 2008 and 2012.

Now, the why: in 2008, Obama wasn’t being blamed for the cruddy economy, hadn’t been hammered with 4 nonstop years of right-wing nutjob media, was benefiting from the glow of a prospectively historic moment, all that. Seems pretty easy to me to explain 3.4%.

[QUOTE]

The other problem with your assumption is that you put Latinos and Asians even more against the GOP than in 2012, when the GOP had record poor performance among those groups. You’re also assuming black levels of support for Obama will transfer to Clinton, although you do expect turnout to drop.

I think I can count on the GOP’s racist, xenophobic magic to do the trick here. If you’re Hispanic, how do you feel about how the GOP clearly feels about you? If you’re black and Republicans are publicly trashing the black organization that’s complaining about blacks getting shot to death by police for no reason, are you more or less likely to vote Republican in 2016?

There’s going to be no reversion to some previous mean here. You don’t vote for people who hate you and have it in for you. That’s the story of minority voting in 2016. The only reason I haven’t changed the Dem vote share of blacks is that it’s so close to 100% already, and it’s hard to move that last few points.

Things can actually get a lot worse for Democrats. Especially once terrorism gets thrown into the mix, where the GOP has a traditional advantage which the President is doing nothing to fix. Doesn’t matter what your demographics are, national security moves votes for the Republicans across the board. So just take your figures, give the GOP an extra 2-3% in every category, and there’s your 2016 result.

I’ve already given the GOP an extra 2-3% in the white categories, plus a big turnout boost among non-college-educated whites. But minorities feel a lot more threatened by white domestic terrorism than by ISIS.

Not to mention, will terrorism still be a big deal next fall among whites? We don’t know. The aftereffects of 9/11 were huge, but that happened in the U.S. and was a much bigger deal than the Paris attacks. If the election had been last month, how big would 2014’s Ebola scare have been?

[adaher]

Terrorism is a big deal across demographics, which is probably why GWB did better among minorities than GOP candidates before and after him.

It’s hard to see an electorate that disapproves of the Democratic leader’s terrorism policy by 2-1 reelecting a Democrat to the same office.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

Terrorism is a big deal across demographics, which is probably why GWB did better among minorities than GOP candidates before and after him.

It’s hard to see an electorate that disapproves of the Democratic leader’s terrorism policy by 2-1 reelecting a Democrat to the same office.

Many things are hard for you to see, it seems. That doesn’t make them less likely.

[iiandyiiii]

@iiandyiiii

Many things are hard for you to see, it seems. That doesn’t make them less likely.

Ehh, this was a pointless and flippant response, adaher. I apologize. I do think you still are sometimes unable to differentiate analysis from wishful thinking.

[RTFirefly]

@adaher

It’s hard to see an electorate that disapproves of the Democratic leader’s terrorism policy by 2-1 reelecting a Democrat to the same office.

It’s easier to see that if you know that voters trust Hillary to deal with terrorism more than they do any of the major Republican candidates.

[Red_Wiggler]

If the Republican strategy to combat increasingly unfavorable demographics is to squeeze an ever larger turnout from its “base,” then they are relying once again on, to paraphrase Megyn Kelly in 2012, “numbers that make them feel better.”

[RTFirefly]

But you know, more Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians will vote Republican this time, no matter how much hatred the GOP aims at them.

Magical thinking!

[Do_Not_Taunt]

@RTFirefly

First of all, the facts: Obama won by 7.24% in 2008, and by 3.86% in 2012. So he lost 3.38% between 2008 and 2012.

Now, the why: in 2008, Obama wasn’t being blamed for the cruddy economy, hadn’t been hammered with 4 nonstop years of right-wing nutjob media, was benefiting from the glow of a prospectively historic moment, all that. Seems pretty easy to me to explain 3.4%.
I think I can count on the GOP’s racist, xenophobic magic to do the trick here. If you’re Hispanic, how do you feel about how the GOP clearly feels about you? If you’re black and Republicans are publicly trashing the black organization that’s complaining about blacks getting shot to death by police for no reason, are you more or less likely to vote Republican in 2016?

There’s going to be no reversion to some previous mean here. You don’t vote for people who hate you and have it in for you. That’s the story of minority voting in 2016. The only reason I haven’t changed the Dem vote share of blacks is that it’s so close to 100% already, and it’s hard to move that last few points.

I’ve already given the GOP an extra 2-3% in the white categories, plus a big turnout boost among non-college-educated whites. But minorities feel a lot more threatened by white domestic terrorism than by ISIS.

Not to mention, will terrorism still be a big deal next fall among whites? We don’t know. The aftereffects of 9/11 were huge, but that happened in the U.S. and was a much bigger deal than the Paris attacks. If the election had been last month, how big would 2014’s Ebola scare have been?

You just don’t get it, Firefly. Trends that favor Republicans will continue forever, linearly. Trends that favor Democrats will regress to their means. It’s classic adanalysis!

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

practically, one of the biggest thing to turn Red states Blue would be to have same-day-voter-registration in more (even all) states. The 6 states with the highest voter turnout last election were also states that have same-day-registration. And groups like the poor, students/young people, & minorities that move more often are more likely to make use of same-day registration. And those same groups tend to vote Democratic.

(Note that those same 6 states with the highest voter turnout went Democratic in 2012. and in 2008.)

[adaher]

Same day registration is awesome. Makes the lines slower, causes the unmotivated to leave.