Talk Elections

I see the electorate like this in 15 years,

You know how this works.  

Dark Red = strong Dem
Light Red = lean Dem
Gray= tossup
Light Blue= lean Rep
Dark Blue = Strong Rep

()

I think this is actually starting to become the Dem equivalent of the old Republican lock.  I see the Southeast and Southwest, the regions of the country growing the most, trending heavily dem in the next decade.  I think by 2020, the Dems will have around 260 EV leaning their way, not including true swing states.  

HockeyDude, I think that will be pretty accurate. WV will be lean Republican, and Florida will be lean democrat. NH will still be dominated by Republicans but in pres. elections it will be lean democrat.

In 15 years the next reapportionment will have occurred.
I put the map more like this:
()

Lots of incredibly rich folks in New England and the middle atlantic Rightwingnut.  Hard to imagine that the Dems will hold sway over that region en mass, without some a priori notion of how the two major parties will evolve.  

How are you guys making these maps anyways...

And why is Texas no longer a republican state...  

I think in 15 years Florida will be solidly democratic.  Both of those maps look pretty bad for the Republicans though.

I don't think the future is going to look that Democratic.  The two party system tends towards a fairly even division, because the parties shift their positions competitively over time.

Great map.  I think that Texas and Florida will gain 3, California will lose 1, Ill, PA and NY will all lose 2.  Texas will remain solidly Republican.  PA will treand more republican because the New Deals will be dead and gone and young entrepenurial(sp) types will take their place and I will be governor of North Carolina which will still trend Republican.  :)

The big question though is: Will the Reps become more liberal or will the Dems become more ocnservative?

And Paul Bremer will have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  ;)

My other senario is that the lose of population to the south will make the north (Michigan, PA, Ohio) more like the old south: rural, quite, secluded. This in turn will make the new south (North Carolina, Georgia, Virginia and Florida) more like the old north: urban, entrepenurial... entra...  GOD I can't spell that word, and more worldy, with Atlanta becoming the "New New York" so to speak.

RightWingNut, how did you change the numbers on the state?  I would like to make a map of my own.

Makes sense.  When you describe it this way I see it as a future with more 'moderate' states.  I would see the old north you mention trending GOP, and the New South staying GOP but more socially moderate.

Yeah that's the way I see it to be honest with you.  If this is the senario, then I think that the Reps would become more moderate on social issues, but not to the point of embracing abortion and things of that sort.

MS is more likely to gain an EV, not lose on.,

Atlanta wont become the new New York anytime soon.  Creationism is still taught as science in biology classes there.

Not in a cultural way, so much as it will become a economic power house.

Same is probably true with Connecticut.  Both MS and CT lost in 2000, and will probably not lose in 2010.  Montana is more likely to gain a 2nd DC (just missed out in 2000) than Idaho is to gain a 3rd.  And NH will probably keep its 2nd CD.  Doubling NV from 3 to 6 is also a bit much.  These are more likely the totals in 2020 or 2030.  

I agree that NM and UT will gain a CD in 2010, and the trends in the Northeast and Midwest look pretty accurate.

I don't see Atlanta becoming an economic powerhouse like New York unless some terrorist attack shakes up Wall Street and stocks need to somehow be traded differently.  Otherwise it would be too risky for corporations to be headquartersed in an area outside NY Metro.  

Perhaps the internet could change things somewhat.  Economists talk about hysteresis and how like minded corporations exploit other like minded corporations by being centered around eachother.  This way they can latch onto eachothers business.  If you've ever noticed furniture shops being located around eachother or a bunch of lamp shops in the same area...  your first thought would be why would so many stores that compete with eachother be in the same area...  it's because it's the most cost effective way to conduct business.  The same is true for large corporations...  

If the internet changes that somehow then NY will lose its calling for corporations to centralize in.  But I don't think it's gonna happen, the market is just too structured here and it would take a long time for a shakeup like that.  Of course if we get hit again with another terrorist attack, I won't hold my breath.  After 9/11 everyone said NY was done but it doesn't seem to have impacted NYC at all longterm.

CT will definitely not lose another seat...  We just barely lost one last time even though our population grew.  And we are still growing slow and steady because of migration from NYC.  So we should be able to maintain what we have unless suddenly all the illegal immigrants in Texas and California get voting rights or something...  in that case every state will lose a vote probably.

You bring up some good points, but it has been the evelution of history that centers shift.  I'm not saying that New York will be irrelivant by 2020 by any means, but I think that the moving of Philip Morris from NYC to Richmond is proof of the fact that technology has drastically changed the way that we do business and companies will not be so shy about packing-up and if they see there interests better served else, where.  I think that NYC will start to loose to other cities as time goes on and if the current trend southward continues, then it is likely that Atlanta will benifit the most.

 Supersoulty that's a good point.  Sixty years ago NY had twice as many electoral votes as CA, now CA has nearly twice as many as NY.  And American Airlines, worlds largest carrier, moved from Chicago, IL to Fort Worth, TX in the late 90s.  But it's more of a Westward, or Southwesterly trend, I think.  Maybe that's nitpicking.  It brings up the point about how the Kerry people like to suggest they don't need any states in "The South" because Republicans racked up victories without winning any of those states for almost a hundred years!  But back in those days that region had only about 20% of the total, whereas now it may be more like 30 to 35% of the total, depending on what you count.

I am curious as to why you keep suggesting Atlanta though.  At first, I thought it was an obvious reference to Futurama (New New York, the lost city of Atlanta, etc.)  But now I going to go out on a limb and assume you're serious.  Why Atlanta, Georgia?

I'm not going to be so arrogant as to try to predict future trends in all 50 states...

Basically what will probably happen is:

1. What's left of the old North-South divide will disappear.
2. An East (Democrat)-West (Republican) divide will open up.

I am still failing to see why it will be Atlanta rather than another metropolitan city such as Las Vegas or Houston.  Why Atlanta specifically.  And is your theory that since Atlanta will remain culturally conservative, Georgia will remain a Republican state like Texas even though it will be dominated by a large metro area the way New York now is?

Why will the East be democratic and the West Republican.  With the exception of New England, the West Coast seems A LOT more liberal than the East Coast... Or will the parties reverse again and the Republicans will become the party for progressives.

Look at this:
()

Exactly. :)

On the topic of parties changing, I definitely see the US growing more socially moderate. The Southern WASPs, who uphold pld-fashioned conservatism are likely to expereicne continuous decline. On eceonomy I'm less sure, but I'd imagine more free trade and possibly more liberal domestic policies, taking care of the poor etc. It's hard to see the US move in the other direction, anyway. But baby boomers retiring might cause higher taxes, and with the huge deficit I don't really see any new spending being done for some time.

"What's left of the old North-South divide will disappear" ???
It has never been stronger! Gore-Bush was the most significant "North-South divide" of the last fifty years.
The division between the Right (South) and the Left (North) is the same since Lincoln in 1860...
If you look at the electoral map of 1896 and at the one of 2000, you'll see that the right-wing states and the left-wing states are the same (the Republican party and the Democratic party switching positions).
()
()

That's very interesting... and I notice even way back then Vermont was one of the (if not the) most liberal state/s.

That East-West divide was actually more prevalent 20-30 years ago, before the boom in Hispanic population, when the Republicans dominated California and the Dems still held most of the South.
See the EV map from 1976.  

The Hispanic population in the West will only increase in the next few decades, so I don't see this divide returning anytime soon.

But Bush will probably do better with Mexicans because of his decision to look the other way on immigration problems...

I almost wonder though, if it's not some big scheme to register all the illegals so they know where they are and then ship them all back...  nah...

*Sighs*

I seriously doubt that Hispanics are as solidly Democrat as is often assumed...
But that's not my point.
Look at the map I posted

N.B
The North-South divide was not very strong in 2000 (Gore won +40% in every SE state), however a East/Inland West/Coastal West divide is clearly visable.
West does not=CA+OR+WA...
Look at Bush's (carefully cultivated) image: a cowboy. That is how he WANTS to be seen...

N.B II
Back in 1900 D did NOT=conservative and R did NOT=liberal.
The Republican Party was conservative then as well(don't be fooled by the Progressive wing...)

N.B III
Vermont is a "small c", rustic, small town conservative state with progressive leanings.
Has been for... ever really

Just for the record and in case no one has pointed it ou CA is trending conservitive...

...so is Oregon.
meanwhile... VA, NC et al are trending Democrat.

This has been repeatedly pointed out.  But thanks.

What evidence does anyone have that CA is trending conservative? (Other than Schwarzenegger, who is not conservative). It was only 3% more Democratic than the national average in 1996, but was 11% more Democratic than the national average in 2000.

The Mountain and Plains states have been trending Republican, but they are all very small.  The growth areas in the West (AZ, NV) are generally trending Democratic.

Define a "conservative state with progressive leanings" please.

Nick,
I was not speaking about Schwarzennegger.  I do not regard him as particluarly liberal or conservative, but rather in the middle by California standards.  In any case, I certainly didn't vote for him (though I may next time.)  I moved here about three years ago, and as everyone knows I'm a serious archconservative.  So there's at least one more Bush vote in CA than last time.  No, one data point does not make a trend.  But consider all the unemployed twenty-something codewriting geeks laid off in '00 and'01.  Most will move Back East to live with mommy and daddy till their emotional maturity catches up with their educational maturity.  They will take their Albert Gore pseudoliberalism with them.  Thus the trend.  :P

I'm too lazy to make a map, but here's my predictions:

NM will become heavily Dem
AZ will go from leaning Republican to leaning Dem
same with NV and CO
VA will become a tossup state
NH will stay Republican on local politics but will lean Dem in presidential elections
FL will become heavily Dem, especially if the Cuban vote continutes to desolidfy
TX will become winnable, especially since whites may be a minority in 15 years.

Georgia strikes me as getting MORE conservative and Republican, not less, although Atlanta is not conservative, it is a heavily Democratic city and much like New Orleans in relation to its surroundings, and I can't see NC trending Dem in national elections in 15 years, although it may become winnable again. But I'm expecting VA to have the biggest change. It probably won't even be considered south anymore, and will have more in common with Maryland than Alabama.

"Small c"-conservative=don't like change

I see the Dems taking the coasts and the Republcains the non.coast, with the SOuth-West being the main exception.

I think the carolinas, louisiana, texas, and florida will also be exceptions to your coastal rule.  And Alaska, of course.  Your SW exception is based, I assume, on the assumption of continued exploitation of minorities by the Democrats.  I don't think that will last, but its just a guess.

No I'm acctually serious about Atlanta.  It is the most well connected city in the world when it comes to transportation and communications wise it is the most connected city in the country behind New York.  It has become a BIG tech center and currently hold the head quarters of I think 16 Fortune 500 companies.  It is the best posstioned city to rival New York if the south-ward treand continues.

good point.  I just looked it up and Hartsfield airport is the busiest in the nation.  But most of that's connecting traffic.  Miami is too likely to be blown away by rain and wind, New Orleans is an HIV-infested dungpit where 20 bucks will get you a pretty good time, and Houston is a place where you're more likely to be shot than robbed.

I'd guess Dallas for the center of commerce for the SxSW region in the long run.  Its growth rate is phenomenal, there are no mountains or oceans nearby to inhibit its sprawl.  It is very white-collar friendly and pro-business.  Probably as much or more so than Atlanta.  And it doesn't have all the historical baggage of Atlanta.  (well, there was that famous bullet which killed two people.  grassy knoll anyone?  LOL)  Basically, it was a shack on the trinity river in 1830.  Now its a futuristically magnificient Oz of glass and steel.  No BS.  I was living in north Arlington when the famous landmark Cotton Exchange was destroyed to make room for a big glass high-rise.  Lots of protests, but none with the bigs bucks to stop the developers.  My kinda republicans.

I wasn't counting Texas, admittedly...I never actually thought about Texas as coastal, you know... ;) I do think Texas will trend Demcoratic, but I'm not sure how far that will take it. South Carolina might be another exception, I'll give you that. And Alaska, lol, what can I say. :)

How about the Most Static State - the state that changes the least.  

I suggest Pennsylvania.  

I think PA is trending GOP...

Gustaf,
If you look at the last eight contests, it's 4 of 8.  That's a little selective, as most talking heads go back ten contests.  In that case it is 6D and 4R.  If you go way back it is more GOP.  I guess you'd have to define 'trending republican'  But in 3 of the last 3 elections its votes went to the Democrat, so a GOP victory this year doesn't mean a trend.  I note that in '92 Perot got almost 19% there and in '96 he got over 8 percent.  It is easy to overanalyze Pennsylvania.  and fun.  and futile.

opebo,
most static = indiana.

New York or Massechusetts.

The Cuban vote isn't desolidifying, on the contrary, in 2000, Bush got a higher percentage of it than any candidate since Nixon.

Don't you think thats because of the picture of the SWAT team guy pointing a automatic rifle at a 5-year old being held by his uncle in his own house? The administration of that event has passed now, and so have passions.

Ok, you are all probably right - PA is trending GOP, and Indiana is very politically static.

I was actually just thinking of PA as demographically and economically the most static state, forgetting the political focus here.

I think that that may have had some effect, but I also think that the fact that Bush spent A LOT of time reaching out to the Cubans and hispanics in general had a lot to do with it too.

Like I said before though, the New Dealers are dying off fast, so the demographic of this state is going to change a lot real soon.  It could fall as fast as 3 EV's by 2010.  And the state will swing GOP as the 30-49 Reaganites take over.

No body answered my question:  How do you change the numbers for the EV's of the states?

This is what I see for the EC by the 2020 election

()


The colors don't mean anything, I will post a map with the trends tomorrow.  Not enought time tonight, but these are my EC predictions.

Er... GOP % in the South were higher in 1988, 1984 and 1972 (usually around 70%)... and in the Deep South, 1964.
Virginia is clearly trending Democrat and Texas got more Republican as it got less Southern...

Check your facts before spewing partizan rubbish everywhere...

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-acubapoll21mar21,0,2025102.story?coll=sfla-news-sfla

The Cuban vote is in fact desolidifying if we are talking about future voting patterns...  a majority of Cubans born in the United States plan to vote against Bush this election...  While Bush is mainly popular in the over 65 anti-Castro community that is dying out.  Don't ask me how but I have a lot of connections in the Cuban community of South Florida and I know this group is definitely not going to go for Bush by a wide margin again...  

Also, if we are talking about the cuban community as a whole...  Cubans barely went for Bush last time.  The Cuban community in New Jersey and New York is staunchly democratic...  Lets not forget only half of Cubans live in the Miami metro area... the ones outside of there are not as unified in their voting...  

And like someone said the Elian Gonzalez thing galvanized and unified the Cuban vote last time... if you look at the last few elections before then the Cuban vote even in Florida had been trending dem...  Bush's brother being governor of Florida also probably helped...  If you factor out those two influences and had a controlled environment the vote would look very different...

Besides Cubans are now a minority of the Florida hispanic population so unless they vote as a 90% block the way black voters in the state do, they won't have much impact.

Here's a map of the 1964 election with battleground states (within 5% of national average) in green, blue for Goldwater and red for LBJ. Just to give a little perspective on trends...





()

Dem: 207 EVs

Rep: 163

Tossup: 168

The close election of 1976, with wrong EV stats on the map this time...grey for tossups.

Dem: 115

Rep: 102

Tossup: 321



()

Note that I said that the corols on my map don't mean anything.

1988:

Dem: 146

Rep: 191

Tossup: 201



()

1956:

Dem: 131

Rep: 148

Tossup (green): 252

()

how do you put the green?

In the EC calcualtors for previous election Leip put in indepednent for some, so I use that to get the right EV-numbers on the map...

To be honest, I sometimes forget that there is a Cuban community outside of FL and that they do tend to Dem.  So I'll give you that.  If these statistics are true, then it does seem that you have a point there, because I can honestly say that I hadn't seen anything like them before.  So my mistake.

But, I believe that the pull that racial politics now has on our nation will soon disipate.  Why you ask?  The emergence of Hispanics as the #1 minority group in the country possed an enourmous conundrum to the Dems.  They have to find a way to reach-out to young Hispanic voters without alienating young black voters.  I simply don't think it can be done.  The result will be that, one way or the other, the Dems will have no chioce, but to stop playing racial politics and if that occurse then there will be a huge change in the electorate.

I honestly believe that the first black or Hispanic president, whomever he or she maybe, will be a Republican, because the Republicans will be the only party that won't play it up into a big deal.  

If that person is a Democrat then the Dems won't be able to handle the concept maturely.  I don't mean all Dems, but I'm sure that the Dem leadership would be unable to do so.  If they do that then they will lose and the cause of having a non-caucasian president will probably be held back another 20 years.

No offense meant, that's just the way I feel.

thanks

Supersoulty,

I agree. The first Black or Hispanic President of the United States will come from the Republican Party. Why? Because the Republicans will nominate a minority candidate who is an American first, a Republican second and a minority third. The Democrats will nominuate someone who is a Democrat first, a minority second, a "citizen of the world" third, and an American fourth!!!

Lol...there's a point to that...

Exactly my point.

The counter-argument id of course that a Democratic minority candidate would probably stand a much better chance of winning.

The Dem canidate would be a lot more radical.

Not necessarily.

Yes they would be.  99 percent of all elected black politicans that are Dems are lunatics.  The only one I see that isn't is Harold Ford.

WE're talking about a distant future, and it doesn't have to be a black. It could be a Hispanic, or even a Jew, as long as it can be considered an ethnical minority.

Anybody can be an ethnic minority.

Many can, but not so many actually are considered as such.

As a brown haired blue eyed waspy white person who is also a democrat aren't I an ethnic minority?

What's your ethnic backround?  I am part russian so I am an ethnic minority.

Irish (1/4) German (1/2) and Spanish (1/4)

Have a hard time getting along with yourself? ;)

Sometimes...  I think there might even be a little french in the german...

though I'm sure most everyone in this country has ancestors that went to war with eachother at one point... heh.

And that's the truth.  See, for example, even though none of my grandparents were born in this country, and even though I had folks on both sides of World War II, I am one-hundred percent American.  If you can get past calling yourself a quarter of this, or two tablespoons of that, then you can be a republican too.

Miguel Estrada 2016!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think his legal expertease recommends him much better to the judiciary rather than the executive branch, but then I'm not a lawyer.  He is a well-respected man, but unfortunately he hasn't passed muster with certain members of the senate judiciary committee.

i think that he will be on the Supreme Court someday, that was more of a joke than anything.  He can't run anyway, being born in Venuzuela(sp) and all.

Orrin Hatch has introduced a bill addressing that.  ;)

Which part?

Oh, let me see if I can dig up a link.  Basically I was referring to his newfound fondness for Gov. Schwarzennegger.  So he wants to amend the US Constitution so that foreign-born citizens of the USA can be elected President.  I don't know whether it has any realistic chance of getting through the pipeline, though.

Oh, yeah, I remember now, we talked about this.  I would be in favor of a clause that would make the requirement 30 years living in the United States and you have to have come here and become a citizen before the age of 18.

Supersoulty 2036!!!!
:)

supersoulty-
I agree with your EV values except SC and TN.

()

Wrong

lol...
Republicans had a better chance at putting up a Republican than Democrats, looking back at 2004. Most people didn't know much about BO, and those who did probably didn't think he would run due to lack of experience. Republicans had Rice and Powell up there, and both were, and still are, very electable.
This is my thought by 2028...
The south won't be as heavy Republican, although most states will still vote Republican comfortably. Democrats will take Arizona and Colorado away from us, and all together, just dominate in the west and southwest, including making Texas competitive. Republicans will make huge strides in the North. Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin will all be Republican, while Illinois, Missouri, and Iowa will be toss-ups, along with Pennyslvania. Just like how Democrat's make the south competitve, the Republicans will make the Northeast competitve. Republican will continue their dominance in the midwest.

Republican >30%- Barely Republican
Republican >50%- Lean Republican
Republican >70%-Strong Republican
Democrat >30%-Barely Democrat
Democrat >50%-Lean Democrat
Democrat >70%-Strong Democrat

My map...
()
North Carolina is the tossup state. That's just me choosing the state I would think to be the closest in that election. The electoral count gives Republicans a 261-262 lead.

LOL The northern Midwest becoming solid GOP...

This is 20 years away. For all you or I know, a third party could emerge and dominate. I'm just making a guess based on trends and such.

Just a question : what does it give in electoral votes ?

I believe I stated that underneath the map. The Republican has a 261-262 lead.

Explain Illinois, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Maine going Republican. 

It's just an educated guess. My thoughts are, that while Latino's start breaking hard Democrat, African-Americans will start trending Republican. Now, we won't win the black vote, but it won't be a landslide. Maybe, 65-35. Therefore, we won't lose by as much in cites such as Chicago or New York. As states around it start trending Republican, I suspect it will too! It's the only state in that area that is a solid Democrat. Something has to give.
The Republican party will become much more moderate, appealing to whites in places such as Connecticut. The Democrat party will be dominated by older liberals and Latino's. Connecticut is a stretch, but once again, this is only a guess. Utah could be voting Democrat in 20 years...

My guess for a 50/50 election in 2020:
()

Let's look at a contrast between the 1976 and 2000 elections, the one preceding the Reagan 1980 landslide and the one following the Clinton 1996 landslide:

()

blue          Ford 1976/Bush 2000
red           Carter 1976/Gore 2000
green       Carter 1976/Dubya 2000
orange     Ford 1976/Gore 2000

If there is such a thing as a realignment, it happens under the cover of landslide elections during which the real action is somewhere other than the Presidency -- Congressional elections, and state and local elections.
 

New Mexico voted for Gore in 2000.

It also voted for Ford in 1976...

Here is my map.

()

269/269 : perfect tie

However, I don't like so much doing this sort of map, we can't really know how will the states vote. The more usefull stuff is to do a trend map. I did 6 maps showing the possible trend in this topic https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=94836.0 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=94836.0).

re: New Mexico, 1976 and 2000:

Corrections have been made.

()

The person you support for VP in 2012 is as psycho as it gets, yet you still believe the GOP will become more moderate?  They have to in order to have a chance, but the GOP is showing no signs of moving that way.  How will the GOP get 35% of the African American vote?

()

The only way in which I can imagine the GOP winning a significant number of blacks over to its side will be to run "Clean Government" candidates against corrupt urban machines -- politicians sure to be liberal, but what the heck? If urban and suburban white people aren't voting for conservative "small government, just keep taxes low no matter how bad the public services get" politicians, then black people aren't going to vote for such types, either.  The GOP will have to support candidates for school boards, city council seats, elected sheriffs, and the like, and many of those will never reach high offices. But what the heck? There's nothing wrong with a corrupt Democratic machine (such as that in Detroit) that a few Republican reformers can't improve. Of course it will take a decade or two for some young reformer as a member of a school board or a city council becomes a Congressional Representative with an incongruous "(R)" following a name... but that looks like the best way in which to get any GOP presence in bailiwicks that now have practically none. 

There will be a price to pay for some GOP constituencies, most notably the dilution of the conservative element within the Party, to which one must ask the question whether it's so great to lose elections just to maintain ideological purity. Heck, Commies seem to be very satisfied with their candidates and their ideological purity, but they just don't win elections.