How will the political landscape be in 2024?

[Colin]

2024:

After an election that was denounced the world over for the ruling government's use of vote rigging in the election the National People's Republican Movement, which was formed during the State Emergency of 2013 by Republicans, Democrats and a majority of Independents, trounced the opposition People's Democratic Rally for Democracy with over 92% of the vote. In truth though the People's Democratic Rally for Democracy was only allowed to actively campaign in a few Northeastern states and along with massive reports of fraud, PDRD members and candidates were reported to have been arrested and tortured by National Intellegence Agency units. There were also reports that some had been beaten, robbed, and assaulted by NPRM voters, especially in the NPRM heartland of the South. As was usual in order to maintain the spectre of democratic government the NRPM allowed the PDRD to win the District of Columbia and keep President Tancredo from a 100% electoral vote win. This policy was first instituted by the second NPRM President, Evan Bayh, who believed that the only person in American history who should have the honor of winning all Electoral Votes should be George Washington. Turnout was a low 39.5% and throughout the South and parts of the West the NPRM achieved 100% of the vote.

President Tom Tancredo (NPRM)/Vice President Jim Webb (NPRM): 92% 535 EVs

State Senator John Simpson (PDRD)/Mayor Richard Martinez (PDRD): 8% 3 EVs

[Colin]

Seriously lets have a debate about politics 18 years from now.

I was being serious. How could you doubt my seriousness.

[Colin]

I mean Colin could be right.

Of course I'm right. Haven't you seen my time machine?

[Colin]

The 2024 election map might look like:

Image Link

Because of 2 electoral college changes, the dems'd get about 267-268 electoral votes on this map instead of 260

Oh yes of course the map will look almost exactly like 2008. I mean 18 years ago



that was the result. I mean those solid Republican states of New Jersey, Delaware, New Hampshire and Maine couldn't possibly become bastions of the Democratic Party.

[Colin]

1988 wasn't a 50/50 year.

Doesn't matter. Let's take a look at a 50/50 year from 30 years ago, granted that's a longer time frame than this question asked but still.



Well that's a 50/50 election from 30 years ago and look how much has changed. Carter swept the South, something which probably no Democrat could do now, and he lost all of the West and parts of the Northeast. This is just 30 years of electoral change. Plus you have to factor in that the next 20 years, just like the past 20 years, wont be made up of constant 50/50 elections, unless we get into a rut which is basically equivalent of the period between 1872 and 1896. That's the thing. It is impossible for anyone to extrapolate what the map will look like twenty years out. Anyone could be right, of course, but my money is always on the on that looks like the least likely to happen. Since it only took 8 years from the South being the only Democratic stronghold during a landslide, in the 1856 election, to being the only Republican stronghold during a landslide, 1964, and only 16 years until it was won by over 70% of the vote by a Republican during a landslide, 1972.

This map was always my prediction for the future so I will stick with it. The Republicans become populists and the Democrats become moderate libertarians. Thus resulting in this map:



But I'm starting to think that my other prediction might be more realistic.

[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.

[Colin]

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

[Colin]

A slight update to my earlier post, I got some things wrong in the first one. Had to take another trip in the time machine to get it perfectly straight:

2024:

After an election that was denounced the world over for the ruling government's use of vote rigging in the election the Democratic National People's Republican Movement, which was formed during the State Emergency of 2013 by Republicans, Democrats and a majority of Independents, trounced the opposition National Popular Action for Democracy with over 92% of the vote. In truth though the National Popular Action for Democracy was only allowed to actively campaign in a few Northeastern states and along with massive reports of fraud, NPAD members and candidates were reported to have been arrested and tortured by National Intellegence Agency units. There were also reports that some had been beaten, robbed, and assaulted by DNPRM voters, especially in the DNPRM heartland of the South. As was usual in order to maintain the spectre of democratic government the DNPRM allowed the NPAD to win the District of Columbia and keep President Webb from a 100% electoral vote win. This policy was first instituted by the second DNPRM President, Evan Bayh, who believed that the only person in American history who should have the honor of winning all Electoral Votes should be George Washington. Turnout was a low 39.5% and throughout the South and parts of the West the DNPRM achieved 100% of the vote.

President Jim Webb (DNPRM)/Vice President George P. Bush (DNPRM): 92% 535 EVs

State Senator John Simpson (NPAD)/Mayor Richard Martinez (NPAD): 8% 3 EVs