Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By the way, here's a map illustrating the political shift by state from 2012-2016:
States shaded in RED moved to the right, and states shaded in BLUE moved to the left. Each shade is an interval of 4%.
This is fascinating! No wonder they are pushing Arizona, Georgia and Texas so hard. That is all they have! And if you look Texas really didn't go Bluer. The Dems didn't pick up anymore seats there so that means a bunch of Republicans showed up and voted for things like their Congressman but left the President Block Blank
I know that Trump only won the state by like 1% but it feels like the Republicans have made so much progress here over the last couple years. The Rural Areas have become extremely Republican and the Pittsburgh Metro keeps getting Redder. Before I could always tell the Democrats were going to win Pennsylvania but now I don't know. It feels like being a Democrat is a dirty word here now. I think right now we could go either way but if the trend continues at even half the rate it's been going I think the Dems will have major trouble
Winning the state. What are your thoughts?
I don't think so. Think of it this way, if Joe Biden ran against Trump, do you think he would have lost the state? The fact that PA went red is more of a reflection of what people thought of Hillary as opposed to what they thought of the Democratic party.
That said, if Trump delivers on his campaign promises, there is no way he won't win reelection (in PA and in the US).
I remember everyone who said the Dems were dead after 2004 and the GOP was dead after 2008 and 2012. LOL how did those guesses work out?
Exactly. By all objective measures, Trump is quickly turning out to be the "flash-in-the-pan" President that was entirely expected. We live in very tumultuous times now, and the pendulum can, and likely will, turn back just as fast.
Also, I think the fact of the matter is that Pennsylvania has never been a party-loyal state, which is in a great sense a positive feature as that encourages independent thought that is not bound by political dogma.
On the other hand, many Pennsylvanians clearly did buy into the rhetoric of the Great Orange Snakeoil Salesman, which is why it went into the Republican column for the first time since '88 (although not, importantly, with a majority of votes, only a plurality).
All that being said, even though 2016 clearly demonstrated a bit of a retrenchment of PA from being more of a solid blue state at the federal level, there's still a boatload of evidence that, demographically, time is on the side of the Democrats in PA and nationally (exit polling in PA shows a significant generational gap, with voters under 45 voting solidly Democratic, and voters over 45 voting solidly Republican: Exit Polls 2016).
The more "Rust Belty" areas of the state could keep their Republican voting high water mark, but that does not change the fact that the fastest growing areas (i.e., the future of Pennsylvania) are in overwhelmingly more liberal/Democratic areas.
You have a point, but American businesses are being strangled by high taxes and over regulation. If Trump is able to address that, we may see real progress being made in Rust Belt states.
I'm pretty sure completely gutting the EPA and fundamental protections for water and air is not what most people have in mind when they think of trying to address "over-regulation."
It's not 1890 anymore. We have certain regulations in place for a reason, regardless of whether the Mr. Burnses of the world think they "inhibit productivity."
it goes to show that the world is moving past coal. Appalachia has nothing left going for it. They might have a shot if Trump offers large subsidies for coal producers to socialize the costs (privatize the profits), or heavily tax other sources of energy (or outright ban them).
I don't think you know what you're talking about. That bit about China having closed all their coal mines doesn't bolster your trustworthiness. Perhaps you'd like to explain what you meant?
Trump is not going to offer subsidies to coal producers. What he has done, however, is to rescind a regulation that Obama put into effect in December 2016 that would have cost a lot of coal miners their jobs.
Our Democrat governor is the one who wants to tax "other sources of energy" (i.e. fracking) by adding a new tax on pumping the product out of the ground. That idea is facing resistance from industry and from Republicans. You are not going to see Trump try to put new taxes on energy. The idea that Trump would "outright ban" any form of energy is simply crazy.
Exactly. By all objective measures, Trump is quickly turning out to be the "flash-in-the-pan" President that was entirely expected. We live in very tumultuous times now, and the pendulum can, and likely will, turn back just as fast.
Also, I think the fact of the matter is that Pennsylvania has never been a party-loyal state, which is in a great sense a positive feature as that encourages independent thought that is not bound by political dogma.
On the other hand, many Pennsylvanians clearly did buy into the rhetoric of the Great Orange Snakeoil Salesman, which is why it went into the Republican column for the first time since '88 (although not, importantly, with a majority of votes, only a plurality).
All that being said, even though 2016 clearly demonstrated a bit of a retrenchment of PA from being more of a solid blue state at the federal level, there's still a boatload of evidence that, demographically, time is on the side of the Democrats in PA and nationally (exit polling in PA shows a significant generational gap, with voters under 45 voting solidly Democratic, and voters over 45 voting solidly Republican: Exit Polls 2016).
The more "Rust Belty" areas of the state could keep their Republican voting high water mark, but that does not change the fact that the fastest growing areas (i.e., the future of Pennsylvania) are in overwhelmingly more liberal/Democratic areas.
First off the Democrat Demographic Advantage is nothing but pure nonsense. Trump easily one Texas and Florida and those are some of the most diverse states in the country. In fact Florida has gotten significantly more Red these last 8 years. The Rust Belt will never look like Texas or Florida. Also as the country has been getting more Diverese the Democrats have done nothing but lose political power and are now the weakest any major party has been in over 100 years. I really can't imagine Pennsylvania voting for the Democrats current platform of Gun Control, Higher Taxes, Correcting White Privilege, Anti-Coal and Anti-Fracking and Pro-Illegal Immigration.
First off the Democrat Demographic Advantage is nothing but pure nonsense. Trump easily one Texas and Florida and those are some of the most diverse states in the country. In fact Florida has gotten significantly more Red these last 8 years. The Rust Belt will never look like Texas or Florida. Also as the country has been getting more Diverese the Democrats have done nothing but lose political power and are now the weakest any major party has been in over 100 years. I really can't imagine Pennsylvania voting for the Democrats current platform of Gun Control, Higher Taxes, Correcting White Privilege, Anti-Coal and Anti-Fracking and Pro-Illegal Immigration.
On substantive issues, Candidate Obama and Candidate Clinton were essentially the same, and we all know that Obama safely won PA two times, so there's obviously not an issue of Pennsylvanians being capable of supporting the Democratic platform (despite the way you've framed those issues, of which most Democrats would vehemently disagree).
It goes to show that turnout can really swing elections in purple-ish states like PA. 2016 clearly saw more Republican fervor versus the previous two elections.
In Texas' case, it still trended Democratic compared to past elections, even when the US shifted right. In Florida's case, it is a bit different, as again, turnout dictates very different results. It is the quintessential swing state.
Overall, the reason why the Dems have lost so much of their power, and it's a valid point, is a very interesting issue of geography and the way Congressional districts are drawn and the very high concentration of Democratic voters in VERY "blue" states like New York, California, Illinois and Massachusetts. However, again, that's not to say that will not continue to change over time as Democratic-favorable demographics begin to challenge Republican more and more on their previously-friendly turf.
On substantive issues, Candidate Obama and Candidate Clinton were essentially the same, and we all know that Obama safely won PA two times, so there's obviously not an issue of Pennsylvanians being capable of supporting the Democratic platform (despite the way you've framed those issues, of which most Democrats would vehemently disagree).
It goes to show that turnout can really swing elections in purple-ish states like PA. 2016 clearly saw more Republican fervor versus the previous two elections.
In Texas' case, it still trended Democratic compared to past elections, even when the US shifted right. In Florida's case, it is a bit different, as again, turnout dictates very different results. It is the quintessential swing state.
Overall, the reason why the Dems have lost so much of their power, and it's a valid point, is a very interesting issue of geography and the way Congressional districts are drawn and the very high concentration of Democratic voters in VERY "blue" states like New York, California, Illinois and Massachusetts. However, again, that's not to say that will not continue to change over time as Democratic-favorable demographics begin to challenge Republican more and more on their previously-friendly turf.
This is totally false information. A ton of people who voted Democrat in previous elections voted Republican this time. Pennsylvania went from Having something like 1.3 million more Registered Democrats to only A few hundred thousand more in about a year. Obama's platform became much more radical after he won the 2012 election. Which he probably won because Romney was so weak anyway.
Texas is not going Blue. Anyone who thinks Texas will be Blue in the next 50 years knows nothing about politics or how culture works. One election does not a trend make. Plus the Democrats picked up like one seat in Texas and it was only at the state level. This is despite a massive drop off at the Presidential level. That means tons of Republicans showed up like they always do but left the Prez box blank.
Also how is the GOP gerrymandering Senate Seats and Governorships? And why haven't we seen any of this "favorable Demographics for the Democrats" in the last 8 years?
First off the Democrat Demographic Advantage is nothing but pure nonsense. Trump easily one Texas and Florida and those are some of the most diverse states in the country. In fact Florida has gotten significantly more Red these last 8 years. The Rust Belt will never look like Texas or Florida. Also as the country has been getting more Diverese the Democrats have done nothing but lose political power and are now the weakest any major party has been in over 100 years. I really can't imagine Pennsylvania voting for the Democrats current platform of Gun Control, Higher Taxes, Correcting White Privilege, Anti-Coal and Anti-Fracking and Pro-Illegal Immigration.
The demographic advantage in the Southwest isn't "non-sense." Let's look at the 18-35 age group in Texas, for example.
Hispanic or Latino - 2,783,159 (43.2%)
Non Hispanic White - 2,520,096 (39.1%)
Black or African American - 842,337 (13.1%)
Asian - 303,175 (4.7%)
The issue with the Latino vote--not only in Texas but other parts of the U.S. as well--is that their share of the electorate has not caught up with their share of the total population. This will change as a younger, U.S.-born generation of Latinos comes of voting age.
It's also noteworthy that Hillary Clinton actually won suburban counties in Metro Houston and Atlanta. So there's also a trend of more urban, educated counties trending Democratic while Whiter, less educated counties trend more Republican.
Pennsylvania is both Whiter than average and less educated than average. So the drift to the Republican column is not that surprising. Whether that's permanent remains to be seen.
Texas is not going Blue. Anyone who thinks Texas will be Blue in the next 50 years knows nothing about politics or how culture works.
The only way Texas will not turn blue in the next, say, 3 election cycles is if Democrats register something on the level of 10-11% of the Non-Hispanic White vote, which is basically Alabama/Mississippi levels of support. Republicans will need to gain a larger share of a shrinking pie.
Texas will not flip as fast as Virginia did, which has a much larger share of liberal transplants in the northern part of the state, but it is diversifying much more rapidly than Virginia.
It's not inconceivable that Texas will turn blue in 8-12 years, if not sooner. Virginia became a Blue state (and it is now pretty much solidly a blue state in presidential contests) out of nowhere. Bush won Virginia by 8.2 points in 2004 and now it's gone Democratic 3 cycles in a row. On the flipside, few people actually predicted Pennsylvania turning Red. So you should never say never.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
