United States presidential election, 2048

[Skill and Chance]

It looks very plausible.  Do you envision the D's getting much more libertarian relative to today?  Hence, no additional party shifts in the South but big ones in the Midwest and West?  Changes I might make:

1. As others have pointed out, CA is a bit large.

2. Without local candidates, I would favor NC going lean D before any new states west of the Mississippi do.  Texas going swing is a bit of a stretch, but there is a lot of time left. 

3. ID is probably the most far fetched part of the map.  For D's to start winning it while losing the PV, Boise would have to completely take over the state like Chicago did in IL.  That's believable in 36 years, but ID would have 7+ EV before moderate-left Boise outvotes the unanimous R rural areas.

4. I don't see MN D's holding on longer than IL D's, but they could both switch around the same time.

5. You have New England really emptying out.  The Boston area economy is doing quite well relative to other industrial cities, so I think its population will be more resilient.

[Skill and Chance]

My Close 2048 Race:

Governor Isabel Alvarez (D-FL)/Senator John Hendrickson (D-NC) 269 EV, 50.03% PV
Governor Bud Lafourche (R-LA)/Governor Cara Cuomo (R-CT)  269 EV, 48.85% PV

Republicans control the Senate and Democrats control the House.  The Alvarez/Cuomo administration is inaugurated in 2049.

The swing states are GA, MT, CT, PA, TN, and AZ.



 

[Skill and Chance]

So, as for predicting EV counts 30 years from now... I'm going to go out on a limb and say that *not* all current trends will continue, but rather some will slow or even reverse.  Some will continue, though!

First off, more and more young people are putting off getting a car or avoiding it entirely: http://www.economist.com/node/21563280  Which means that more and more of them are going to want to live  in places where a car-free lifestyle is possible, i.e. cities.  This, of course, doesn't mean that all cities are going to reap the benefits of this generational shift- Detroit will still suck- or that suburban areas can't retrofit to accomodate this new reality.  And it also can't do much about restrictive zoning that prevents new (and much-desired!) housing from being built in places like San Fran and DC, necessarily depressing their numbers somewhat.  But things like rising gas prices (and they will do nothing but rise) and the Internet will make the suburbs less and less desirable.

Also, the Southwest is not going to be able to grow much more.  There is just not enough water (especially if, as many scientists fear, climate change dries the area out further), so they are due to hit a wall soon. 

As for immigration and migration... there will always be some Latino immigration, but it's slowing already.  I could see a boom from Asia and the Middle East, though if our economy goes south that may even not happen. 

These things are all going to take time, though, so some consideration of the current trends is necessary- 30 years is not that long of a time. 

Anyway, specific predictions:

* In absolute terms, Texas probably still gains the most; I could see its growth stopping by the 2040 Census, but it's going to take some time to get there.  It won't catch up to California, though.
* In percentage terms, the big winners are going to be Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia.  There's plenty of room for growth here, without the resource constraints of the interior West or the "built-out" nature of desirable metro areas like NYC or San Fran.  And metro areas like DC, Raleigh-Durham, and Atlanta will continue to do well. 
* Other states I expect to gain a seat or two include Washington, Utah (yes, it's going to have water issues, but not half as bad as Arizona, and Mormons will continue to have large families long after Hispanics stop coming over in large numbers), Maryland (there's less room, but the DC area is going to continue to grow like gangbusters), Florida (they have less room to grow than you might think).  Idaho, Montana, California and Oregon might get one, maybe not.  Possibly South Carolina. 
* North Dakota probably won't get a second district.  Even with a population boom, it would need to basically double and I don't quite seen that happening.
* California and the Northeast will lose a tiny bit, but not as much as some might expect.  NYC has been gaining people at a good clip, and will continue to be a heavy magnet for overseas immigration, young people, and the exploding Hasidic population.  Whatever NY loses at this point will mostly come from Upstate.  Basically, areas like SF, Boston, NYC are going to be "winners" in the economy of the future, but are already heavily built-up and face regulatory and logistical barriers to further growth.
* Pretty much every state in the Midwest will continue to lose seats, even as they stop losing actual population.  Chicagoland, the Twin Cities, Indy, and Columbus will do alright, but it won't be enough.  In absolute terms, Michigan loses more seats than any other state over the next three Censuses; and OH/PA/IL probably lose something like two each.  The Philly suburbs (and infill within the city itself, yes the city will grow) won't be enough to stop the bleeding from Western PA.  Also, as long as we're speaking of the Rust Belt, Rhode Island obviously goes down to at-large and stays there.
* In percentage terms, however, there are going to be even bigger losers than the industrial Midwest: Nebraska and West Virginia are oh so ridiculously screwed in the USA of the future.  They probably don't quite sink all the way down to at-large representation, but people are going to continue to empty out of the Appalachians and the Plains (especially as the coal seams and Ogalalla dry up).

So, wild guesses on the exact numbers:

MI -3
IL -2
OH -2
PA -2
MN -1
WI -1
IA -1
CA -1
WV -1
RI -1
NY -1
NJ -1
NE -1
KS -1
MO -1
AR -1
IN -1

TX +5
NC +3
VA +3
GA +3
UT +2
FL +2
WA +1
CO +1
AZ +1
MD +1

I agree on some points and disagree on others.  There is a hard environmental limit on the SW growth, but it seems more of a century-scale problem than a decadal-scale one.  When water becomes an issue, Texas can bail itself out with desalinization, so it doesn't have the same growth ceiling at least for Houston.  I would be shocked if TX gains less than 10 districts over 30 years.  They could be halfway there in 2020!  On this note, Atlanta surprisingly has a water problem, and that could limit GA's growth.

I do think trends will reverse if global warming gets really bad.  I could see a warm world in which New England becomes a huge Millennial retirement destination, but that would be more 2060-2080 than 2040.  Hawaii could also gain districts through immigration by Polynesian refugees if sea level rise gets bad.

I agree on MD +1 and I think this is something a lot of people overlook.  VA probably gains at least 3 more districts between DC and Richmond growth and keeps moving left until it votes almost like MD.

There is also a chance that natural gas saves the OH valley economically and the population stabilizes, but it would take an awful lot at this point.

[Skill and Chance]

This might help some. Here's a map I made a while back using 2005 U.S. Census estimates for 2030:

To gung-ho on Florida Arizona and not bullish enough on the rest of the South and Southwest, at least going off of 2010 results.