How will the political landscape be in 2024?

[Joe Biden 2020]

Well after the two party system collapses after the 2016 elections:

A collapse like that would require an issue as deep and divisive as slavery in 1860. The central role of slavery was already established by the mid-1840's, so we should already be able to point to an equally deep issue today if it causes collapse by 2020. What issue today will still be there in 2020 and be deep enough to fracture both parties?

The War on Terror

[muon2]

Well after the two party system collapses after the 2016 elections:

A collapse like that would require an issue as deep and divisive as slavery in 1860. The central role of slavery was already established by the mid-1840's, so we should already be able to point to an equally deep issue today if it causes collapse by 2020. What issue today will still be there in 2020 and be deep enough to fracture both parties?

The War on Terror

The answer's a bit brief, but we can try to run with the ball anyway. I assume from the answer that the WOT has continued as a series of brushfire wars at various locations, but with a common thread of US-led interventions. To get to the map displayed, both the Democrats and Republicans need to split, then reform new coalitions, based on their direction to handle the WOT.

Which of the new parties emerge from which old parties, and what is their fundamental position on the WOT?

[Reignman]

Image Link

I doubt things'd change this dramatically, but this might be a possibility?

[GOP = Terrorists]

A collapse like that would require an issue as deep and divisive as slavery in 1860. The central role of slavery was already established by the mid-1840's, so we should already be able to point to an equally deep issue today if it causes collapse by 2020. What issue today will still be there in 2020 and be deep enough to fracture both parties?

Well in 2016 the Democratic nominee is a mentally retarded chimp and the Republicans nominate Jesus Christ but he comes out as a communist in favor of pardoning all prisoners and nuking Rome.

[ATFFL]

A collapse like that would require an issue as deep and divisive as slavery in 1860. The central role of slavery was already established by the mid-1840's, so we should already be able to point to an equally deep issue today if it causes collapse by 2020. What issue today will still be there in 2020 and be deep enough to fracture both parties?

Well in 2016 the Democratic nominee is a mentally retarded chimp and the Republicans nominate Jesus Christ but he comes out as a communist in favor of pardoning all prisoners and nuking Rome.

Ahhh . . . so Ted Kennedy will finally get the Dem nomination.

[Colin]

That quote is just to reference you.  I am thinking possible except Wyoming

Wyoming would vote for the more economically conservative party though it could be close. However if the Republicans became more populist, more like old skool Democrats, I doubt that it would stay in the Republican column.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because of the abortion ban? That's in danger of being overturned in a referendum this November and polls have shown a majority don't support it. Again SD is the more libertarian of the Dakotas and may still vote more on economic issues.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why the only places in PA that aren't populist are Bucks and Montogomery County in the suburbs of Philly. The rest of the state is solidly populist, though there is a divide between right leaning and left leaning populists.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unions and the UP do I need to say anymore? It's old rust belt populism personified in a state.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That one is one of the weakest on there. I was guessing that the NY suburbs would outvote the more blue-collar areas.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lets see lots of suburbs near the New York border, lots of traditionally Dem areas, some populist areas in and around the Hartford and New Haven areas though I think that would be outvoted by the ever growing New York suburbs.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why? Vermont is very socially liberal and I doubt it would vote for a populist Republican Party. Vermont's economic liberalism, I believe, is often overstated, yes I know about Bernie but I think he comes more from a long line of Vermont independents than for any policies. Plus social issues would probably overtake economic ones up there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well Hawaii would go either way I could see. Always thought of it as very pro-status quo which seems rather populist though Hawaii, along with New Jersey, Georgia, Florida, Virginia and North Carolina would very likely be swing states.

[Joe Biden 2020]

A collapse like that would require an issue as deep and divisive as slavery in 1860. The central role of slavery was already established by the mid-1840's, so we should already be able to point to an equally deep issue today if it causes collapse by 2020. What issue today will still be there in 2020 and be deep enough to fracture both parties?

Well in 2016 the Democratic nominee is a mentally retarded chimp and the Republicans nominate Jesus Christ but he comes out as a communist in favor of pardoning all prisoners and nuking Rome.

Ahhh . . . so Ted Kennedy will finally get the Dem nomination.

Ted Kennedy:  An old, mentally retarded chimp

[P.J. McDuff]

Ted Kennedy:  An old, mentally retarded chimp

Boo-urns!

By 2024, assuming the country isn't invaded by Daleks or some other sort of space creature, I'm guessing that following the all-round good times provided by President Obama for the previous eight years, former VP Martin O'Malley and his running mate, Krist Novaselik of Washington, will be running for their second term against Connecticut Senator Shane McMahon, son of wrestling magnate Vince; and his running mate, the 79-year old Bob Dole Jr.

If I'm even a quarter right, you all owe me a drink...

[True Democrat]

Two options:

1. Republicans and Hispanic Love Affair (Democrats move populist, but become anti-immigration):



2. More Likely scenario: Dems move Libertarian, Reps move Populist:

[Josh/Devilman88]

[Max]

1. Scenario:

Americans find the way back to vote on ecenomical issues over social issues (as they did during the 1930's and 1940's). The Dems rebuild their alliance with Big Labor, the Reps stay with Big Business.
While social issues are no longer the important issues, both parties become more moderate on them.

A lot of 50/50 presidential races, Democrats become stronger in the South, Republicans in the Northeast.


2. Scenario:

The parties don't change significantly. The Republicans stay to be the parties who usually wins the presidential elections (as it is the fact since 1968):


3. Scenario: Dems became more populist, Reps become more libertarian. The Dems become stronger all in the US but loose in the Northeast and the West coast. The Dems become the stronger party of the both.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I don't see how anyone could think the Democrats will move to the right socially, considering how much more socially liberal our generation is from the last.

[Reignman]

I don't see how anyone could think the Democrats will move to the right socially, considering how much more socially liberal our generation is from the last.

Good point.

[Max]

I don't see how anyone could think the Democrats will move to the right socially, considering how much more socially liberal our generation is from the last.

I don't think our generation is socially left from the last. Since the 1980's, America is moving to the right on social issues.

If Democrats would like to win some elections, they have to rebuild their populism of the past.

[jacob_101]

The Democratic Party aka the Socialist party believes in government provided health care for all as well as government paid college education for the poor and middle classes.  This will be paid by major tax increases.  On social issues they are still pro-choice and pro-gay marriage and believe the federal government has jurisdiction over both.

The Republican Party has split by 2024 into two parties.  The first one, maintains the Republican party name and believes in government funded health care and college education.  This will be paid with moderate tax increases, along with cuts in welfare programs and other social programs to try to keep taxes somewhat low.  On social issues, the party is pro-life and wants abortions banned nationally.  They are anti-gay marriage but want to pass federal civil union laws.

The second faction of the Republican party is made up of limited government conservatives and social libertarians.  They believe strongly in the constitution as written by the founding fathers and interpret it as such.  The government should not provide health care or education and the federal government is limited in it's scope.  More power is given to the states as was intended.  Social issues such as abortion and gay marriage are not part of the national debate.

Democrat party--43%
Republican party--25%
Limited government--32%

The Democrat party is strongest in the Northeast and West, but has a significant presence across most of the country except the mountain west.

The Republican party is made up of Evangelical Christians and socially conservative minority voters.

The Limited government party has strength across the country but not enough to win the election.  It's base is mostly part of the white population and has very little minority support.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I don't see how anyone could think the Democrats will move to the right socially, considering how much more socially liberal our generation is from the last.

I don't think our generation is socially left from the last. Since the 1980's, America is moving to the right on social issues.

If Democrats would like to win some elections, they have to rebuild their populism of the past.

Take a look at the progress made on gay marriage since then. And that pretty much all polls show majority support for gay marriage in the under 30 bracket.

Here's an example: There was a late 80s/early 90s show my mom liked called thirtysomething. Apparentely this show once generated a huge conroverys due to it showing two gay men in the same bed. That's it. Today such scenes don't generate any controversy at all. And in 1997, when the title character of the show Ellen came out, it generated so much controversy and boycotts of Disney + anyone who advertised on it I can still remember it fairly clearly today. That wouldn't be anywhere near so controversial now.

[Rob]

[ATFFL]

Did you write for the West Wing?

[Rob]

As Colin pointed out, things tend to change over the course of eighteen years. A lot.

[jerusalemcar5]

Did you write for the West Wing?

LOL.  I hated those results.  Santos wins South Carolina?  MY ASS!!  So unrealistic.  Boo West Wing for being dumb.

[Colin]

Rob yours looks almost identical to mine. I'm guessing you believe the trends will move in the same direction as I thought.

[Rob]

^^ I do, and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't influenced by your map.

That is very possible assuming the shift we're thinking of (I assume you'll be a Democrat in this hypothetical future?); but I would make some minor changes to mine.

New and Improved 2004 Map:

Call it a hunch.

[Frodo]

Pretty much dominated by the Democratic Party, with the Republicans hunkered down in their Deep South and prairie redoubts, and a few states here and there in the inner-mountain west, like Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah.

Just a hunch:

[Jaggerjack]

Pretty much dominated by the Democratic Party, with the Republicans hunkered down in their Deep South and prairie redoubts, and a few states here and there in the inner-mountain west, like Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah. 

Seriously?

[Lief 🗽]

Two ideas:

or