Which map is more likely by 2024?

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

(actually currently a 269 to 269 tie)

[Never]

The first one is most likely by 2024, as it seems to account for Democratic strength out West, unlike the other two. The second one seems unlikely, with Nevada going Republican, but Georgia and North Carolina voting Democrat. In fact, my quibble with the second map is nearly identical to my reservations about the third one.

[NHLiberal]

Whenever I look at these threads and see that no choices have NH as Democratic, I know to ignore it

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

You couldn't have ignored this though since you posted here.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Whenever I look at these threads and see that no choices have NH as Democratic, I know to ignore it

Considering how strongly New England has trended toward Democrats since the '90s and how defiantly behind that trend New Hampshire has remained, I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that a more socially moderate/more libertarian leaning GOP (which is what many think the party will have to become to survive in the future) could swipe NH into its column.

[Skill and Chance]

Probably Map A.  Although, I think more of the Midwest than that would flip before R's pick up NH and also that GA/FL would probably go D if Democrats are doing that well with Hispanic voters. 

If Republicans are going to move socially left enough to have NH be lean R, Democrats are going to gain ground in parts of the South and there would be more national GOP improvement in the upscale suburbs.  The federal workers might be even more Dem than today, but could turn the tide in a lot of close Kerry states.  I propose something like this:

[NHLiberal]

Whenever I look at these threads and see that no choices have NH as Democratic, I know to ignore it

Considering how strongly New England has trended toward Democrats since the '90s and how defiantly behind that trend New Hampshire has remained, I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that a more socially moderate/more libertarian leaning GOP (which is what many think the party will have to become to survive in the future) could swipe NH into its column.

Of course. But this is about trends, and outofbox's maps are base maps; under these maps, NH would be a Republican lean/base state. Which obviously won't happen; it's going in the other direction.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Whenever I look at these threads and see that no choices have NH as Democratic, I know to ignore it

Considering how strongly New England has trended toward Democrats since the '90s and how defiantly behind that trend New Hampshire has remained, I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that a more socially moderate/more libertarian leaning GOP (which is what many think the party will have to become to survive in the future) could swipe NH into its column.

Of course. But this is about trends, and outofbox's maps are base maps; under these maps, NH would be a Republican lean/base state. Which obviously won't happen; it's going in the other direction.

Except that New Hampshire has trended R for the past two elections, you know...

[TDAS04]

None are likely, but map 1 I guess.  

[Rockefeller GOP]

Just a side comment: obviously any one given map is going to seem unlikely, but that hardly suggests that the same demographics/states will continue their current voting patterns decades from now.  For all we know, Blacks could vote Republican in 50 years.  Is that likely?  No, but if you would have told someone in the 1880s that Blacks would vote loyally Democrat from the '30s on, they'd find it hard to believe.

[ElectionsGuy]

Map 1 is much more likely than 2 or 3.

[Mr. Illini]

Map 1 I would say, primarily because I don't think the Midwest will shift as much as some think.

[New_Conservative]

The first map. Georgia, Michigan, and Minnesota are not going to flip that quickly.

[heatmaster]

Here's my map for 2024...a more fairer one I would think

[Enderman]

Here's my map for 2024...a more fairer one I would think

Uhh... forgot to turn off the shading

[Skill and Chance]

I would think the 3rd one, but flip Nevada and make Georgia a toss up.  It would be difficult to explain Florida and Georgia moving that far left without a similar trend in the Southwest.

[Skill and Chance]

Or how about something like this.  The gist is that the North/South gap in the white vote closes up after a Christie/Ryan win in 2016 and a Hagan/Warner/Nunn win in 2020/24:

[heatmaster]

Nope prefer the Republican sea of blue version - Jon Huntsman or Brian Sandoval I would imagine make the scenario happen. My guess, Once the midterms are done and dusted, Chris Christie re-emerges as the flavor of the month and after demonstrating gusto during primary - picks Sandoval -Latino-purple state, closer than expected loss by Christie to say Martin Biden and Gillibrand/Warner.Biden declines a second term and the Democrats led by Warner to lose. Sandoval  uses his 2016 vice presidential effort to good effect. Sandoval wins big in 2024.

[Mehmentum]

In order to remain competitive, the GOP needs to do better with Hispanics, which would lead to a lot of the Democratic trending western states to flip back.

At the same time, I thing that the Democratic trend in the coastal south (Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia) will continue.

In this way I like maps 2 and 3 better (which are effectively the same, really).  However, I don't think the Democrats will collapse in the Midwest.  The Republicans will be competitive there with the right candidate or the right environment, but I don't see the case for a Republican trend there.  

The map gives Democrats an edge in a 50/50 election like today, however re-allocation of EVs will likely boost the Republicans a bit.

[Person Man]

In order to remain competitive, the GOP needs to do better with Hispanics, which would lead to a lot of the Democratic trending western states to flip back.

At the same time, I thing that the Democratic trend in the coastal south (Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia) will continue.

In this way I like maps 2 and 3 better (which are effectively the same, really).  However, I don't think the Democrats will collapse in the Midwest.  The Republicans will be competitive there with the right candidate or the right environment, but I don't see the case for a Republican trend there.  

The map gives Democrats an edge in a 50/50 election like today, however re-allocation of EVs will likely boost the Republicans a bit.

If the Republicans do well reaching out to Hispanics, they will at least do substantially better amongst blacks. Maybe they will go from 12:1 and 2:1 respectively to 3:1 and 5:4 respectively?

[IceSpear]

In order to remain competitive, the GOP needs to do better with Hispanics, which would lead to a lot of the Democratic trending western states to flip back.

At the same time, I thing that the Democratic trend in the coastal south (Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia) will continue.

In this way I like maps 2 and 3 better (which are effectively the same, really).  However, I don't think the Democrats will collapse in the Midwest.  The Republicans will be competitive there with the right candidate or the right environment, but I don't see the case for a Republican trend there.  

The map gives Democrats an edge in a 50/50 election like today, however re-allocation of EVs will likely boost the Republicans a bit.

If the Republicans do well reaching out to Hispanics, they will at least do substantially better amongst blacks. Maybe they will go from 12:1 and 2:1 respectively to 3:1 and 5:4 respectively?

It will be a tall order for the GOP to do better among blacks after the way they treated the first black president.

[Skill and Chance]

In order to remain competitive, the GOP needs to do better with Hispanics, which would lead to a lot of the Democratic trending western states to flip back.

At the same time, I thing that the Democratic trend in the coastal south (Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia) will continue.

In this way I like maps 2 and 3 better (which are effectively the same, really).  However, I don't think the Democrats will collapse in the Midwest.  The Republicans will be competitive there with the right candidate or the right environment, but I don't see the case for a Republican trend there.  

The map gives Democrats an edge in a 50/50 election like today, however re-allocation of EVs will likely boost the Republicans a bit.

If the Republicans do well reaching out to Hispanics, they will at least do substantially better amongst blacks. Maybe they will go from 12:1 and 2:1 respectively to 3:1 and 5:4 respectively?

It will be a tall order for the GOP to do better among blacks after the way they treated the first black president.

No one will be voting based on Obama's tenure in 2024 and probably not in 2022 or 2020 either.  Even G.W. Bush, who left office with ~25% approval  isn't an issue in 2014 and was only a minor issue in 2012.  Consider what happened to the Catholic vote after Kennedy and Johnson (symbolically a re-election of Kennedy for all extents and purposes)http://cara.georgetown.edu/presidential%20vote%20only.pdf 2024 would be equivalent to 1976 here, and Nixon had already won the Catholic vote in '72!  Now Catholic identity is obviously less cohesive than black identity, but keep in mind that the Catholic vote had basically never gone decisively R before.

[Mehmentum]

In order to remain competitive, the GOP needs to do better with Hispanics, which would lead to a lot of the Democratic trending western states to flip back.

At the same time, I thing that the Democratic trend in the coastal south (Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia) will continue.

In this way I like maps 2 and 3 better (which are effectively the same, really).  However, I don't think the Democrats will collapse in the Midwest.  The Republicans will be competitive there with the right candidate or the right environment, but I don't see the case for a Republican trend there.  

The map gives Democrats an edge in a 50/50 election like today, however re-allocation of EVs will likely boost the Republicans a bit.

If the Republicans do well reaching out to Hispanics, they will at least do substantially better amongst blacks. Maybe they will go from 12:1 and 2:1 respectively to 3:1 and 5:4 respectively?

Didn't George Bush do well with Hispanics in 2004 and no better with Blacks than normal?

[Person Man]

In order to remain competitive, the GOP needs to do better with Hispanics, which would lead to a lot of the Democratic trending western states to flip back.

At the same time, I thing that the Democratic trend in the coastal south (Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia) will continue.

In this way I like maps 2 and 3 better (which are effectively the same, really).  However, I don't think the Democrats will collapse in the Midwest.  The Republicans will be competitive there with the right candidate or the right environment, but I don't see the case for a Republican trend there.  

The map gives Democrats an edge in a 50/50 election like today, however re-allocation of EVs will likely boost the Republicans a bit.

If the Republicans do well reaching out to Hispanics, they will at least do substantially better amongst blacks. Maybe they will go from 12:1 and 2:1 respectively to 3:1 and 5:4 respectively?

Didn't George Bush do well with Hispanics in 2004 and no better with Blacks than normal?

I heard he got into the teens and like 15% in Ohio. It's conceivable that a future Republican could win 45% of the Hispanic vote and 20-25% of the Black vote. That would force Democrats into a more socially liberal and fiscally conservative direction.

I'd imagine this is what the map would look like if Republicans start doing better amongst minorities. The might even win Minnesota and New Jersey-

[Mehmentum]

^
Nationwide, George Bush got 11% of the Black vote in 2004, despite getting 44% of the Hispanic vote. 

Regardless, I don't think its fair to assume that just because the GOP does better with Hispanics, it'll do better with African Americans just because they're both minorities.  They're two different demographic groups with different religious compositions, culture, and political goals.