Which states do you see moving left or right over the next 20 years and why?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 09:40:54 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Which states do you see moving left or right over the next 20 years and why?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Which states do you see moving left or right over the next 20 years and why?  (Read 7845 times)
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: September 23, 2011, 09:35:05 PM »

In terms of left/right politics, almost every state could move left. However, in Atlas-sense trends (swings relative to the national swing), every trend in one direction must be countered by a trend of equal size in the opposite direction somewhere else.

I think there are a couple of distinct possibilities. One is Hispanics becoming "white" and voting close to the national average. The other is Hispanics remaining a distinct minority and continuing to vote strongly Democratic, while non-Hispanic whites trend Republican in opposition. In the former scenario, the electoral map remains quite similar to how it is now. In the latter, we see maps similar to in these threads, with Democratic trends in the West countered by Republican trends in the Midwest and Northeast (but mainly the former).
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: September 24, 2011, 01:05:21 AM »



Here's a guess at 2052.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: September 24, 2011, 01:11:35 AM »

In terms of left/right politics, almost every state could move left. However, in Atlas-sense trends (swings relative to the national swing), every trend in one direction must be countered by a trend of equal size in the opposite direction somewhere else.

I think there are a couple of distinct possibilities. One is Hispanics becoming "white" and voting close to the national average. The other is Hispanics remaining a distinct minority and continuing to vote strongly Democratic, while non-Hispanic whites trend Republican in opposition. In the former scenario, the electoral map remains quite similar to how it is now. In the latter, we see maps similar to in these threads, with Democratic trends in the West countered by Republican trends in the Midwest and Northeast (but mainly the former).

There will quite likely be a realignment based on whoever is in charge when unemployment finally gets back to 6%.  The other party will need to develop a new coalition: ex. Democrats reaching out to rural voters on opposition to GOP budget cuts or Republicans dramatically increasing minority outreach using social issues.
Logged
qochimodo
Rookie
**
Posts: 26
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: October 04, 2011, 08:01:28 PM »

I see the West trending Democrat or possibly more of a populist movement such as California, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and my home state due to the influx of minorities moving in.  The northeast will become more of a Libertarian stronghold, people go against big government in New York, New Jersey and Massachusettes.

Believe the south will shift to the center socially and economically shift to the left, reflecting that of the northeast that we see today.  People migrating from the northeast tend to move south, that is most expected.  The midwest such as Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan and Illinois will shift economically to the right and socially stay the same.  This is where the Republicans can focus on starting 2028 election cycles.

Anything can happen, change and the 2 major parties won't stick with the same platforms forever.

I'm not saying you're wrong about the northeast, but New York of all the northeast states isn't going to be one of the northeast states moving in that direction if any of them are. New York is just to minority heavy for that to happen.
Logged
Wonkish1
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,203


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: October 05, 2011, 11:17:59 PM »

I fail to see this thing with PA trending right.  The fastest growing areas in the East are trending Dem.  The slowest, or even negative growth areas in the west of PA are the most GOP.

I thought I've heard that Pittsburgh is one of the new bright spots in the country during this recession due to a modest, but noticeable resurgence of higher skill jobs in the city.
Logged
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: October 06, 2011, 12:18:01 AM »

Essentially I see a strengthening of the coalitions already in place. The democrats tighten their grip on New England and the northeast. West PA and Philly/East PA trend further apart. MD and DE stay blue.

Virginia and NC become sort of like Maryland. SC and GA are swing states due to high AA Presence. Florida's voting habits will become more like Iowa. Slightly more dem but enough to make a difference. It will still vote for strong GOP candidates. Texas becomes more like Indiana (voting wise) in which it is still republican, but in reach for a good democrat.

Much of the west (CO, NV, AZ, NM trend hard dem. CA, WA, OR are all 60-65% dem. Utah and Idaho are down to R+10 levels but still safe. Montana moves slightly dem but still a GOP state. I see Wyoming moving dem but still safe GOP like ID and UT. The Dakotas will probably be in R+6 category in which they are still republican but still open to electing dem senators.

Nebraska and Kansas stays the same. Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Iowa become sort of a third party progressive/populist place that it was in the early 20th century. Illinois becomes polarized between Chicagoland and downstate. The entire lower midwest and upper south trend hard R because of the lack of college graduates and minorities to offset them.
Logged
TeePee4Prez
Flyers2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,480


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: October 06, 2011, 12:52:34 AM »

I fail to see this thing with PA trending right.  The fastest growing areas in the East are trending Dem.  The slowest, or even negative growth areas in the west of PA are the most GOP.

I thought I've heard that Pittsburgh is one of the new bright spots in the country during this recession due to a modest, but noticeable resurgence of higher skill jobs in the city.

Still a negative population growth area.  It seems that area has the capacity for only so many jobs and many of the union Dems and their decendants moved onto other states such as Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas.  I was surprised at how many Steelers fans there are in NOVA and Myrtle Beach.
Logged
Wonkish1
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,203


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: October 06, 2011, 01:38:02 AM »

Here are mine:

For the next 20 years I'm suspecting it not being to much different than this





Some notable points on this:
1) I'm bucking the trend on this one and saying that Florida is going to grow even more GOP in the future. I believe you had a confluence of events that have kept Florida as a swing state for as long as it has. 30 years ago Florida was for the most part just another Southern state, but also Dems performed better among retirees back then. As time went on Florida became increasingly lest South, but the GOP increasingly did better among older folks. The 2 converged and now I think its older population will increasingly vote GOP. Especially with this huge amount of cheaper than normal housing inventory in Florida I think you'll still see most of the immigration to the state are older folks. So for that reason I think Florida will be the Dem's graveyard. They keep on sending more retirees from the northeast and they state just keeps on getting more and more conservative

2) I think the movement in Michigan and Pennsylvania is going to be slower than a lot of people think right now. I mean you're counting on net emigration of the AA communities to places like Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston which is easier to say for Detroit than it is to say for Philly. And you're counting on Pittsburgh and Grand Rapids to continue their surge to the right and continue to be the best new places to find work in each of those respective states. That takes a long, long time for changes like that to occur. But Michigan will flip first.

3) I think the movement in Wisconsin and Minnesota is going to be much quicker. First, as somebody pointed out above the conservative suburban areas around the Twin Cities are growing pretty fast. Minnesota is unique in that the suburban areas are heavily Republican and the rural areas are more Dem. But what isn't talked about much is that the DFL(Dem, Farm, Labor) has all, but collapsed as a party apparatus. The Dems will be reemerging as just the good old Democratic party not DFL anymore. Just like what is happening in northern Michigan, Wisconsin, and Appalachia the rural areas of Minnesota including the Iron Range are going to start trending quite a bit more to the right. Minnesota will fall to a GOP favored tossup within the next 12 years. Wisconsin will be even faster yet. It already is a locally conservative state(they don't normally vote in Dem state legislatures) and a swing state nationally, but the Milwaukee suburbs are growing as well and that is Wabasha county. The most conservative place in the state. Another 30,000 people moving to Wabasha county and you can pretty much kiss Wisconsin voting for a Dem president in most elections good bye.

4) I think it will take longer for Arizona to become a Dem state than many people think. It will take another 10 years(especially given the law down there) just for Arizona to become barely a swing state. Give it another 10 years to be a solid swing state.


In 30 Years:


1. Texas end up taking much longer to become a swing state than most folks on here realize. But after 30 years of Hispanic growth, AA immigration, and liberal Austin growing Texas buckles under the pressure and becomes a swing state.

2. Illinois suffering from mass exodus of AA in Chicago and Peoria and liberal flight also succumbs to the pressure and gets moved to the tossup column.

3 Same for New Jersey. South Carolina turns swing because of the squeeze put on it by North Carolina and Georgia. Florida starts its GOP decline because of this generations 40-50 year old's reaching that age where they are kicking the bucket.
Logged
Wonkish1
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,203


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: October 06, 2011, 01:43:49 AM »

I fail to see this thing with PA trending right.  The fastest growing areas in the East are trending Dem.  The slowest, or even negative growth areas in the west of PA are the most GOP.

I thought I've heard that Pittsburgh is one of the new bright spots in the country during this recession due to a modest, but noticeable resurgence of higher skill jobs in the city.

Still a negative population growth area.  It seems that area has the capacity for only so many jobs and many of the union Dems and their decendants moved onto other states such as Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas.  I was surprised at how many Steelers fans there are in NOVA and Myrtle Beach.

Well here's an article on Pittsburgh. Turned the corner on population growth. Not as affected by recession. Lower unemployment and solid wage growth. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11067/1130456-455.stm

No question that Pittsburgh has been definitely one of the bigger jokes in the country the last few decades. But according to this it appears its maybe just started to turn a corner?
Logged
Wonkish1
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,203


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: October 06, 2011, 02:31:02 AM »

Also, my thoughts on this subject also immediately turn to how the policy in these new swing states is going to affect the types of party people that would come out of them.

First of all, expanding into right to work states is not going to get rid of right to work laws. They are way to popular. The people moving their are assuming mostly white collar jobs of which none want unions. Also the lack of public sector employee unions is a big factor as well.

This is particularly an issue for Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and eventually Texas and South Carolina. Between the overall fall in Union participation in the United States, the growth of further white color work, the expansion into Right to work states and loss of currently union states is going to have an effect on the party as a whole. It is quite likely that most pro-union pieces of the Dem platform will be deluded down or removed from the Democratic party.

Also it is very likely quite a few of these states will have enacted education vouchers before Dems start winning national races there and way before they start winning local elections there(national usually always comes first before local). Polling shows that once education vouchers enter an area they are extremely popular among the population. Also given the lack of strong teachers unions in those states its unlikely they'll be able to roll back the clock.

Given these and other pieces of conservative legislation in those states I think your looking at a new type of Democrat coming out a place like Georgia or North Carolina. I think based on current trends it would likely be an "efficient government + moderate on social issues Democrat". One that runs on streamlining government processes with the use of the private sector and moving to best practices while still maintaining or growing a streamlined social safety net. You would likely see Democrats in the area straddle pro-life on one side and maybe a cautious approach towards Gay parented families or something like that. Also South Carolina has quite the "wonk" streak in the GOP. I think you could assume that if the Dems started taking over the southeast that this would probably continue within their own party.


Another interesting thing to think about is what kind of GOP candidates would come out of the Rust Belt. Well first of all manufacturing in the rust belt will mostly not have a pulse. All new manufacturing plants are going to right to work states. Not just the Boeing case, but Toyota, Mercedes, Honda, BMW, even CAT is pulling out of Illinois and heading to the right to work states. So if none of the rust belt states pass right to work, you can expect that the areas are going to have to be replaced by something else.

In Western Pennsylvania its Nat Gas and I believe semiconductors. Grand Rapids its Furniture. Cleveland its Polymer, Biotech, and BioMedical. So its pretty safe to say that the similarities between the states and cities are going to start fading away as it stops being a big manufacturing center of the country and starts to get involved in more specialty industries. As cities and states diversify their industries it would be a pretty safe bet that the Midwest would become a bastion of fiscal conservatism where currently is predominately found in suburban communities in surrounded by rural social conservatives.

The Liberal Capital today: San Francisco
The Liberal Capital in 30 years: Denver

The Conservative Capital Today: Texas(the whole state)
The Conservative Capital in 30 years: Indiana(the whole state)
Logged
Wonkish1
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,203


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: October 06, 2011, 02:42:11 AM »

I think you are pretty correct, except that illinois won't be a tossup before RI/CT(Boston and New York suburbs) become Republican. Also I suspect that one mountain west state will become Californicated, most likely Idaho or Utah. Montana might flip on it's own though.

I sincerely doubt that Idaho or Utah will be Californicated. Definitely not Utah and I'll tell you right now why. Boooze! Utah might as well be the driest state in the Union.

See Nevada is a unique case in Califonication because it has Vegas. Booze, p*$$y, and gambling. If it didn't have that, it would take Nevada 50 years to muster the number of Hispanics to truly be a competitive state and that is assuming there is no change in Hispanic voting(which you and I both know). Utah and Idaho are the exact opposite. They'll keep a lid on that stuff and so the number of social conservatives will remain strong for a very, very long time. I just don't see it.

But I am curious as to why you think Rhode Island and Connecticut will flip before Illinois does. Chicago is bleeding off its D voters at an extremely fast pace. Bloomington, Normal which is extremely conservative is growing. Its what is happening in Michigan today except 20 years behind.

But I'll admit I don't know much about what his happening in Rhode Island or Connecticut so please fill me in.
Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: October 06, 2011, 03:05:46 PM »
« Edited: October 06, 2011, 03:19:00 PM by Nein Nein Nein Plan »

I'm gonna buck the trend--as social issues decline in importance and the GOP becomes more oriented towards moderates and semi-libertarians, the Democrats will respond by appealing to a coalition of minorities and WWC voters, effectively a partial revival of the old New Deal coalition. This would likely happen through a realigning election.



Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.049 seconds with 12 queries.