The effects of Hurricane Maria on Puerto Rico will change future Presidential elections, with the Democratic Party winning the state in future contests for the White House.
Puerto Rico is losing a substantial portion of its citizenry due to the slow and inadequate response on the island to this natural disaster by the Trump Administration.
Some Puerto Ricans, all of whom are citizens of the US, and can register to vote immediately, have migrated to New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Illinois, but the vast majority, more than 200,00, double the original estimate, have moved to Florida, preferring warm weather.
Most have settled in Central Florida, in the Orlando and Tampa areas, with the Puerto Rican population having multiplied since the 2010 Census, while a lesser number have moved to South Florida.
As long as these citizens register and vote, the largest number will vote Democratic, and in close races for the White House, that can make a difference, and it could also, over time, affect state elections for Governor and other executive offices, as well as the state legislature.
When Florida becomes reliably “Blue”, it will add 29 electoral votes in the 2020 Presidential election, and more than that once reapportionment of seats based on the 2020 Census, and in time for the 2024 and 2028 Presidential elections.
And when the Hispanic vote of any part of Latin America becomes larger and reliably Democratic, except for Cuban Americans then Georgia, Arizona, and eventually Texas will be “Blue”, and the Republicans are doomed on the Presidential level.
Only by voter suppression and discrimination will the GOP have a chance to win, and one can be sure they will use every imaginable tactic to prevent Hispanic voting, so Democrats have to work incessantly to insure that Hispanics are not denied the right to vote, including law suits to stop this disgraceful tactic of the party that, more than ever, represents the Tea Party mentality.
Ronald writes, “When Florida becomes reliably ‘Blue’, it will add 29 electoral votes in the 2020 Presidential election, and more than that once reapportionment of seats based on the 2020 Census, and in time for the 2024 and 2028 Presidential elections. | And when the Hispanic vote of any part of Latin America becomes larger and reliably Democratic, except for Cuban Americans then Georgia, Arizona, and eventually Texas will be ‘Blue’, and the Republicans are doomed on the Presidential level.â€
I have quite a response. A lengthy response. In fact, I am going to spilt this into two separate, responding posts.
I am going to post some maps. I don’t want them to be annoying for one to be going back and forth. But, I need to post something which illustrates what I am getting at. So, please excuse me with this.
What I want to say is this: If the Democrats reach a point of winning those states mentioned by Ronald on a regular basis, the Republicans—not just for the sake of their viability but survival-ability—are not going to just sit there and let it happen and, afterward, choose to not contend. They will contend. And they will counter. A big part of what I am getting at is envisioning how such a thing—and it would involve electoral map and party realignments—may materialize.
*********** A CURRENT OR MORE RECENT PERIOD ***********
Since 1992, the average number of states carried between U.S. Presidents Bill Clinton (1992, 1996), George W. Bush (2000, 2004), Barack Obama (2008, 2012), and Donald Trump (2016)—24 years and seven election cycles—have been 29. You can round it off to 30 if you want. And you can say, “20 states are for the Republicans. 20 states are for the Democrats. 10 states are the ones which will decide a presidential election’s outcome.â€
• Here is a map showing where I think the Republicans are with their 20 states (Nebraska is in purple because of a flaw from 270toWin.com; the state’s 2nd Congressional District is where the GOP is vulnerable):
http://www.270towin.com/presidential_map_new/maps/ApW3N.png
• Here is a map showing where I think the Democrats are with their 20 states (light shades are those vulnerable but give the party its 20):
http://www.270towin.com/presidential_map_new/maps/0NnZ9.png
*********** THE FUTURE MAP ***********
If the Republicans were to lose regularly the likes of Texas (38 electoral votes), long-established bellwether Florida (29), Georgia (16), and Arizona (11)—and I would add, because it ranked in Trump’s states’s margins between the latter two, North Carolina (15) plus the 2nd Congressional District of Nebraska (a margin of only +2.24 for Trump)—that means a total of 110 electoral votes would be gone long term.
The one state I am sure, which flipped Republican to Trump, which will stay GOP long term is Iowa (6 electoral votes). I would also say the same about the 2nd Congressional District of Maine. (As the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton lost both profoundly, dramatically, and badly.)
The Republicans, down to 196 electoral votes, but with including the Trump/Rust Belt pickups of Ohio and the more notable trio of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin—the three which averaged a combined margin of +0.56 (his six pickup states averaged +3.39)—would be moved over to the GOP column regularly, yes? I don’t think so. I think they are now bellwether states. And I think Ohio, also a Trump/Republican pickup, is still a bellwether.
To lose those states mentioned by Ronald, regularly, would require the GOP to win the 64 electoral votes combined from long-established bellwether Ohio (18), 2016’s tipping point state Wisconsin (10), Pennsylvania (20), and Michigan (16) on a regular basis. But, they would still give a Republican 196 of the required 270 electoral votes. That would mean having to string together victory, as suggested by their low Hillary Clinton/Democratic holds in margins, the likes of Minnesota, New Hampshire, and the statewide of Maine. Those would not be enough. If all of them did not work out, that would mean looking to get the needed 74 electoral votes from, say, Oregon. Perhaps New Jersey. Perhaps the state of Washington. Perhaps…California and Illinois. That is, if Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, and Nebraska #02 are gone from the Republican and into the Democratic column, a winning Republican would have to pursue and win over California and Illinois. (You can’t be a winning Republican who sees the Democrats win the seven Top 10 populous states Barack Obama carried for re-election in 2012, which add up to 187 electoral votes, and lose the remaining three states’s combined 69—that are the 38 from Texas, the 16 from Georgia, and the 15 from North Carolina—which carried for Mitt Romney. This is not doable.)
To lose all those states, the Republicans would have to counter the Democrats with some state realignments for a new period of the two major parties’s presidential base states. They would also have to go through a party realignment. That would cause a map—and with future tossup contests—to look very differently from what we have been used to seeing from the 1990s to 2010s.
Let us envision a map in which Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas (and I am adding the 2nd Congressional District of Nebraska) are regularly Democratic. Those will be in a medium blue.
Let us envision that same map in which Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan (plus Iowa and the 2nd Congressional District of Maine) are regularly Republican. Those will be in a medium red.
What will appear in yellow suggests the paths for a future winning Republican or Democrat. And, if the Republicans were to actually lose Texas to the Democrats on a regular basis, this party would have to counter by going after winning in California again. (The two major parties each have in common not having won each other’s routinely carried largest base states at the presidential and senatorial levels since 1988!)
A note about the following map: Nebraska and Maine appear in purple because of a flaw from 270toWin.com. Maine #01 (Democratic) and Maine #02 (Republican) would carry opposite each other. The statewide outcome would turn into a tossup (yellow). Nebraska is Republican for the statewide as well as the 1st and 3rd Congressional Districts. But, the 2nd Congressional District would go Democratic on a regular basis.
Imagine the following:
http://www.270towin.com/presidential_map_new/maps/NlKDL.png
• Republican—10 states, solidly red, remain that way. In a worst-case scenario for the Democrats, 5 more would regularly color red: Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (plus Maine #02). 133 electoral votes.
• Democratic—10 states, solidly blue, remain that way. In a worst-case scenario for the Republicans, 5 more would regularly color blue: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas (plus Nebraska #02). 208 electoral votes.
• Tossup—20 states. A future change, to set up paths for winning Republicans and Democrats, would open up the map. Nowadays, 20 carry Republican and 20 carry Democratic no matter. Now, let’s imagine their each down to 10 with what they currently carry routinely. What opens up are 20 which set a new course of being open to both parties. Sure—the demographics. But, also, there would become changes within the states’ politics—in which they become open to going the either way or, eventually, the other way. The current Solid and future Lean Democratic states would combine for 208 electoral votes. Future Republicans, with what would become their path, would have to counter-realign with a realigning map that mixes the past with the present. 197 electoral votes.
(Another response will follow.)
*********** A FOCUS ON MICHIGAN ***********
Donald Trump—who carried all 24 states (206 electoral votes) won by 2012’s losing Republican nominee Mitt Romney—won his 2016 presidential election, in a Republican pickup, primarily through the Rust Belt of the 64 combined electoral votes from Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and my home state Michigan. Of the 2.1 million votes which shifted 2016 Republican/Trump nationwide, approximately 1.7 million came just from these four states. That is nearly 80 percent. They combined for a lot of electoral power.
Historically, from those four states, my home state has the worst record in backing presidential winners. Yet, Michigan ranks No. 14. It has carried 34.5 of 46 election cycles. That is giving a half-point in split-outcome elections (Electoral College vs. U.S. Popular Vote). Michigan is at 75%. Of the remaining three, Ohio comes in at No. 3 with 45 of 54 election cycles (83.33%); Pennsylvania is No. 6 with 48 of 58 election cycles (82.75%); and Wisconsin is No. 8 with 33.5 of 43 election cycles (77.90%). The historical average, from 1789 to 2016, are 1,539 carried states from 2,220 voting states, for 69.32% and, by today’s numbers, 34.66 [34] carried states. That is, coincidentally, the average number of carried states between Elections 1980 to 2016.
Of the six pickup states for Trump, I felt that the two which were the best bellwethers (for the particular election of 2016), were Wisconsin and Michigan. But, I lean more toward Michigan, because it ranks No. 14 (while Wisconsin is at No. 8), is in the middle of the pack between No. 1 New Mexico and No. 30 North Carolina (which is at the tipping point of ranked states’s reliability rate of having carried for presidential winners), and this makes Michigan look more along the median. (Of Trump’s 100 flipped electoral votes, between six pickup states, the average of 16 electoral votes is right there with Michigan.) And the percentages of voting support from third-party candidates Gary Johnson (L-New Mexico) and Jill Stein (G-Massachusetts), in 2016 Michigan, were very close to what they received nationally. Even the margins of Johnson over Stein were a near-match. So, I lean to Michigan as the best bellwether state of Election 2016. (And it is an open primary state!)
For my post on these rankings, in response to “The Cycle Theory of American History Again in 2016†(December 12, 2016), here is the link: https://www.theprogressiveprofessor.com/?p=29045 .
I have previously cited Michigan as having voted the same as its favorite companion state, Pennsylvania, in all but five elections since Michigan’s first vote was in 1836. (Three of the five exceptions were one having a presidential candidate who carried his home state but not the companion state. The other two disagreements were when they voted for three of the four terms won by Democratic president Franklin Roosevelt. Their sole Republican carriages were not with the same election cycle.) If Michigan is gone, from the Democrats to the Republicans, long term, well I would be looking to numerous states which tend to vote the same as Michigan—not every single time—but at least in three of every four election cycles. And a lot of the yellow on that map are states which have done that.
The following is a list which goes back from 1860, the Republicans’s first win with Abraham Lincoln, to 2016. This a period of 156 years which number 40 presidential election cycles.
*** NEAR-PERFECT COMPANION ***
• Pennsylvania and Michigan—37 of 40 (92.50%). Although Pennsylvania and Michigan disagreed in 1848 and 1856, due to this exercise of counting with the start the Republicans’s first winning election in 1860, and leading to 2016, these companion Rust Belt states voted the same from 1860 to 1928 and have since disagreed in 1932, 1940, and 1976. (Pennsylvania voted for the winners in 1940 and 1976. Michigan voted for the winner in 1932.)
*** RUST BELT INFLUENCE ***
• Wisconsin and Michigan—33 of 40 (82.50%). They disagreed in 1892, 1912, 1940, 1948, 1960, 1968, and 1988. (Wisconsin voted for the winner in 1968. Michigan voted for the winners in 1960 and 1988.)
• Iowa and Michigan—33 of 40 (82.50%). They disagreed in 1912, 1944, 1948, 1960, 1968, 1988, and 2004. (Iowa voted for the winners in 1912, 1948, 1968, and 2004. Michigan voted for the winners in 1944, 1960, and 1988.)
• Ohio and Michigan—30 of 40 (75.00%). The neighbors carried the same from 1860 to 1908. (Ohio’s bellwether rep began in 1896.) The carried differently in 1912, 1916, 1940, 1944, 1948, 1960, 1968, 1976, 2000, and 2004. (From these disagreements, Ohio did not side with the winners from 1944 and 1960 while Michigan did.)
*** DEMOCRATS’S GREATEST STRENGTH IN THE MIDWEST ***
• Illinois and Michigan—34 of 40 (85.00%). A former bellwether state, which voted for 23 of the 25 winners of 1900 to 1996, Illinois disagreed with Michigan in 1892, 1912, 1940, 1948, 1968, and 2016. Only in 2016 did Illinois not vote for the winner while Michigan did. (Historical Rank: No. 2, with 42 of 50 election cycles, for 84.00%).
*** THE SLEEPER IN THE UPPER MIDWEST ***
• Minnesota and Michigan—33 of 40 (82.50%). They voted the same from the Republicans’s (also Minnesota’s) first election, in 1860, to 1936. So, 20 of them in a row! They disagreed in three of their seven occurrences, after the 1950s, because Minnesota had a Democratic nominee for president or vice president who won his home state but not Michigan. (Both Minnesota and Michigan had a major-party presidential or vice-presidential nominee in 1976.) So, they disagreed in 1940, 1948, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, and 2016. (Historical Rank: Tied with Michigan at No. 14, with 30 of 40 election cycles, for 75.00%.)
*** OUT WEST ***
• California and Michigan—32 of 40 (80.00%). They disagreed in 1880, 1892, 1916, 1940, 1948, 1960, 1968, and 2016. (Historical Rank: No. 3, with 35 of 42 election cycles, for 83.33%.)
• Oregon and Michigan—33 of 40 (82.50%). They disagreed in 1868, 1912, 1940, 1960, 1968, 1988, and 2016. (Historical Rank: Tied with Michigan at No. 14, with 30 of 40 election cycles, for 75.00%.)
• Washington and Michigan—25 of 32 (78.12%). The state of Washington first voted for U.S. President in 1892. They disagreed in 1896, 1916, 1940, 1948, 1960, 1988, and 2016. (Historical Rank: No. 23, with 23 of 32 election cycles, for 71.87%.)
*** BACK EAST ***
• New Hampshire and Michigan—33 of 40 (82.50%). They agreed in all from the Republicans’s first winner, in 1860, to 1908. (New Hampshire carried for all winning Republicans prior to 2000 George W. Bush.) Their disagreements were 1912, 1916, 1932, 1960, 1968, 2000, and 2016. (Historical Rank: Tied with Michigan at No. 14, with 43.5 of 58 election cycles, for 75.00%.)
• Maine and Michigan—33 of 40 (82.50%). The state went to a split allocation system in 1992. So, only statewide outcomes will be compared. Maine (and Vermont) never voted for any of the four terms won by Franklin Roosevelt. Maine and Michigan, which agreed in all from 1860 to 1908, disagreed in 1912, 1932, 1936, 1944, 1960, 1968, and 2016. (Historical Rank: No. 35, with 34 of 50 election cycles, for 68.00%.)
• Connecticut and Michigan—32 of 40 (80.00%). They disagreed in 1876, 1884, 1888, 1892, 1912, 1932, 1940, and 2016. (Historical Rank: No. 29, with 41 of 58 election cycles, for 70.68%.)
• New Jersey and Michigan—28 of 40 (70.00%). From 1860 to 1892, New Jersey voted for only one Republican (1872). So, the disagreements were 1860, 1864, 1868, 1876, 1880, 1884, 1888, 1892, 1912, 1940, 1968, and 2016. If you take 1896 to 2016—a period of 120 years and 31 election cycles—New Jersey and Michigan come in at 27 of 31 (87.09%). (Historical Rank: No. 21, with 42.5 of 58 election cycles, for 73.27%.)
• Delaware and Michigan—26 of 40 (65.00%). Similar to New Jersey, Delaware didn’t vote for a Republican until 1872 and didn’t do so again until 1896. Delaware and Michigan disagreed in 1860, 1864, 1868, 1876, 1880, 1884, 1888, 1892, 1912, 1932, 1940, 1968, 1976, and 2016. If you take 1896 to 2016—a period of 120 years and 31 election cycles—Delaware and Michigan come in at 25 of 31 (80.64%). (Historical Rank: No. 39, with 38 of 58 election cycles, for 65.51%.)
*** CONCLUSION ***
Supposing I agree with Ronald, 100 percent with all this, and I have to imagine this all taking shape over the next two decades. Well, the Democrats better hope that no more than Iowa and Maine #02 have been flipped to the Republicans on a regular basis with Election 2016. The reliability records from those Trump pickups of Rust Belt states are outstanding. Pennsylvania and Michigan, not as strong as Ohio, voted for 8.5 of the last 10 election winners of 1980 to 2016. It was only John Kerry, who lost with both the Electoral College and U.S. Popular Vote, who was able to carry both states. When you look at the states compared to Michigan, there is a reliability that they will vote the same in every four of five presidential elections. (With Ohio, it is at least three of every four as Michigan. Ohio and Michigan voted the same in all five cycles of the 1980s and 1990s while they were agreed three times from 2000s and 2010s.) Those 2000 to 2016 cycles were five. Many of them voted the same as Michigan in four of those five. But, if Donald Trump wins re-election in 2020, his map would likely include Michigan (along with Pennsylvania and Wisconsin). Given Wisconsin was his 270th electoral vote, his tipping point state in ranked margins, It would be necessary for him. So, for a 2024 Democratic pickup year, flipping the Rust Belt quartet—to go along with Arizona, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas (plus Nebraska #02)—would be ideal. But, by the year 2032, another Republican presidential pickup year may strike. And while Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Arizona (and Nebraska #02) could carry for a losing Democrat, that pickup winning Republican may flip a lot more than Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ohio. That pickup winning Republican could flip the overwhelming number of states that I compared to Michigan. (There is, after all, no true “lock†for a political party for winning the presidency.)
WOW, D, you have done it again!
My head is “spinning”, LOL, reading your analysis, and again, I thank you for your perceptive comments!
Time’s Person of the Year for 2017 is the #MeToo movement.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/06/media/time-person-of-the-year-2017/index.html
The newest stupid thing Dump is doing is pandering to the Religious Right, moving the embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, which will result in Pandora’s box opening up.
https://thinkprogress.org/trumps-impending-jerusalem-announcement-is-really-about-the-religious-right-d3b06f8c2de5/
For many evangelicals, Jerusalem is about prophecy. It signifies the End Times, Armageddon for them.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/08/opinions/jerusalem-israel-evangelicals-end-times-butler-bass-opinion/index.html