Talk Elections

...in your lifetime? Come on, this thread was inevitable. :P

I'm 99.9% sure about all of these except WV, which was iffy:

()

Also plausible:

()

I was contemplating coloring Iowa blue as well, honestly.

The first map, but switch VA with MD and add MA.  A GOP 5-point+ PV win still = flipping VA through at least 2024, particularly if it's Pence running.

None.

But I thought the OP will say NH !

I think NY, MA and MD will LIKELY vote Democratic for the rest of my life, and I think ID, WY, UT, NE, KS and OK will all vote GOP ... all of those COULD switch, but it'd be hard.  Other than that, I think every state will switch at least once.

Never vote Dem again: Wyoming.

Never vote Republican again: New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, Rhode Island, Washington State, California, New Jersey, Oregon, and Maryland.

I think DC (not a state but who cares) and Maryland will never vote GOP during my lifetime while Wyoming, Oklahoma, the Dakotas, Utah and Idaho will never vote Dem in my lifetime. I fully believe TD's theory that the GOP will eventually become a very technocratic centrist/centre-right party in order to survive.

()

Never Republican Again: California, Washington, Illinois, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts

Never Democrat Again: Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, West Virginia

Based on premium quality Atlas analysis, I've concluded it must be this:

()

But in all seriousness, these are the only ones I have confidence in:

()

Landslides happen, re-alignments happen, population change happens (and not always in predictable ways), political trends change, parties change their ideology, and it's possible we'll get a serious third party candidate from just about anywhere in the political spectrum. We have no idea how the electoral map will look in the future. I would bet that, 30-50 years ago, people would have said, "no way will I ever see VT, NH, or ME go Democratic."

Never Democratic for the next 30 years: Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska (including NE-01 and NE-03), North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wyoming.

Never Republican for the next 30 years: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont.

Some historical voting patterns have had staying power, though, as your VT example illustrates.  It went straight Republican from 1856-1960, at a time when population change and movement between states was much higher than it is today.  Now that I think about it, the best candidates to be a modern version of 19th century Vermont could be Hawaii or Wyoming- remote states with very distinct local cultures and not a ton of migration in or out.  New Mexico is intriguing in the same way.

My thoughts as well. D.C. I'm 95% sure on and Wyoming I'm about 80% sure on.

In the right circumstances I could see states like California, New York, and Maryland voting Republican in 2040 and states like West Virginia and Kentucky voting Democrat in the 2030's.

I don't think there's any state that is held permanently by one party. Yes eventually Texas will go blue again and yes California will go red again. That goes for every state even Alabama will eventually go democrat

Wyoming without a doubt for never going D, and California or D.C. for never going R.

()

After Trump. Dems will have a 279 electoral advantage and WI, PA and MI will never vote GOP ever again

Maine is leaning right, as are MI, WI, and PA.

In 2018, Dems will pick up governor mansions in ME, MI and win Congressional seats in ME enough for it to lean left again.

Bruce Paquin will lose in 2018, ME 2

One election doesn't make or break a state's future politics

I know that, MI, PA and WI voted Democratic since 1992 and only in 2016 did they break with their tradition

http://www.270towin.com/maps/bR70X

DC (not a state obviously) is the only one I'd bet the house on. The highest Republican % *ever* was Nixon's 22% in 1972, and that was when Nixon won by 23% nationally in a less polarised era. The only way it would ever vote Republican is if that candidate were unopposed, or there was a complete switching of the party platforms.

I think every state has at least a 10% chance of voting for either party at least once in the next 50 years. That did, in fact, happen from 1964 to 1984. It's by no means guaranteed to happen again, but 50 years is a long enough time I think there's a decent chance of it.

I was born in 1990, so actuarially speaking, I should be around until 2075-2085 barring an unforeseen circumstance.

Using that math, I will see 14-17 more presidential elections. Chances are I will see quite a few realignments, and probably a couple 1972/1984 style landslides. If I had to pick two states to keep up their respective streaks over the next 60-70 years I'd go with Wyoming and Hawaii, but I'd still give both less than 50% odds.

()

Like I said WI, PA and MI will go back Democratic in 2020 as the 279 blue wall is back with Cory Booker as the nominee

This. DC, too.

Booker is the one Democrat I can see losing one, two, or all of those states. He's too much of a Neo Liberal economically. The Democrats need a populist to swing those states, and with Trump really not governing as a populist thus far, a Populist Democrat can easily win those three states and beat him.

No, he won't he won his state races across all races in NJ overwhelming. If the GOP wants to underestimate him, go ahead.

 
First of all, I'm not a Republican. I voted Sanders in the primaries and Hillary in the General and I learned not to underestimate any Presidential Candidate after Donald Trump was elected President. With that said,  NJ isn't Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania. Another issue Booker is going to run into is all the money he took from the pharmaceutical industry and his pushing charter schools with Betsy Devos when he was Mayor of Newark. I'm not saying he can't win, but he can also lose and we Democrats need to be careful of who we nominate in 2020.

Nope Arizona went straight GOP from 1948 to 1996

By my personal calculations, even if we were to apply the largest PV margin in history (1924) to the 2016 election, DC will stay D, while NE-03 will stay R. These are the two regions where I can predict with near absolute certainty which party they will stick with.

()

()

How does everyone seem to think DC will never go Republican and Wyoming will never go to the Democrat? What if there are major realignments where the parties look completely different?

The only states I'm reasonably sure will never vote for the opposite part again (at least in my lifetime) are Wyoming and DC (though it isn't a state), however, if there is a major realignment they could flip for sure.

With the current alignment, I see it going like this.
Every New England state (except New Hampshire, Maine CD2 and maybe Connecticut.)
New York
Maryland
Washington D.C.
West Virginia
Alabama (possibly???)
Nebraska CD3
Kansas
Utah
Wyoming
Idaho
Washington
Hawaii

Arkansas, Alabama, and West Virginia and D.C.

Sort of an old bump, I know, but it's a fun thread.

Assuming my remaining lifetime is about 45 years or so, give or take, there are very few states, perhaps zero, that I'd be willing to bet would never flip, as in 100% certainty.  On the other hand, I could see several flipping in the case of a realignment, albeit it could take years or even decades for that process to completely unfold.

Still though, the only states that I'd consider say.. <0.5% likely of flipping in my lifetime would be:

Maryland
Wyoming

If we increase the likelihood a bit, maybe I'd add:

Oklahoma
Massachusetts

MT Treasurer, I'm curious why you have VA on your first map (a map you label with 99.9% confidence, which I know you're probably being mostly facetious about, but still), as opposed to a state like say, MD?

If we presume that the Fairfax County model is the wave of the future for the Dems, which in itself, I do not think is a particularly unreasonable prediction, then it would seem to me that this effect would be at least as equally pronounced, if not more so, in a state like MD.  Take, e.g., Montgomery Cty, places such as Bethesda, Rockville, and so on and so forth.

On top of that, consider that MD also has another large majority Black city (Baltimore) on top of that.  VA does have Richmond and Norfolk, but both combined are still smaller than Baltimore.  MD's Black population as a % of total population is about 10% larger than in VA.

VA is growing faster than MD, but not at such a significant rate and both states are growing.  Consider that Montgomery Cty is actually growing faster than Fairfax (and I think we know the demographics of those migrating in), and Prince George's is about equal to Fairfax (slightly less), though in fairness it should be noted that Loudoun is growing faster than all 3.  Additionally VA has a larger rural population, though neither state is particularly rural and are decreasingly so as time goes on.

Just something I was wondering.  I do find your pick of WV interesting as well, and was also considering picking it, but one reason for my hesitation would be that WV's change was so dramatic and so rapid that it leaves me to believe that there is a certain degree of elasticity in the state.  Even if it may be the case that given the current state of the Democratic Party, WV is an especially bad fit.

I tried to consider this, as well.  If WV can so drastically change its preferences in such a short time not so long ago, it's not out of the question it will do it again in my lifetime.  States like the Dakotas and Nebraska and Kansas, on the other hand, have riden the waive with the GOP regardless of its various forms and messages so long as the Party of Lincoln retained even the smallest shred of an "individualist" message, and I don't see that ever going away.

()

Great post. Yeah, I'm pretty sure VA (which is basically Maryland 1992 right now) will never vote Republican for president or Senate again in my lifetime. Maryland is already one of the most Democratic states in the country and almost maxed out for the Democrats, but you're right that there are hardly any signs of things "normalizing" there or the state trending a bit to the right, so I probably should have colored it red as well. I was simply being more cautious there, and remember - 50+ years can be an eternity in politics.

I was iffy on WV because I could see (a) the Eastern Panhandle (which right now is the most Republican part of the state in statewide races, but I don't think it will be in 50 years) growing and dramatically altering the state's politics (I know this seems incredibly implausible right now, but you never know) or - although I find that less likely - (b) the state switching again due to elasticity and some of the reasons you mentioned.

I think it's absurd to say that a state that Clinton won by 5.3% will never vote for a Republican again, I agree that it's unlikely to go red, but as things stand now, it would be one of the first blue states to flip in a GOP landslide. Perhaps in the next 20-30 years it becomes a D+15%-20% state instead of a D+5%-6% state though, we'll see.

I agree, I think Virginia is very inelastic and a state like New Mexico (and plausibly even Rhode Island) would be more likely to flip, and also, it's not implausible that Democrats start doing as well in NOVA as they are currently doing in the Maryland counties bordering DC, and once that happens, Virginia is titanium blue forever, barring a 50 state GOP landslide. but at the same time, I think that an exceptional GOP candidate vs a poor Democratic candidate would lead to VA going red, at least in 2020 or 2024... by 2028 it'll likely be too far gone for a Republican to win it even if they're an exceptional candidate.

I think Texarkana has a good point on this- and it's why I chose MD as one of my "never flip in my lifetime" states, but not VA, at least not yet.  I do agree with you MT, that VA is inelastic and polarized and perhaps increasingly so as time goes on, and there are a slew of other states I would expect to flip before VA (people that claim that VA is a toss-up state, or even a swing state, I do not think are paying particularly close attention to what is going on).

But that being said, the margin is narrow enough, there are still enough GOP voters in the state, and its flip was recent enough, that I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that in a stars-aligned, GOP landslide scenario that the GOP could win VA in a "last gasp," so to speak.  Sort of a Bush in '88 or Clinton in '96 type outcome.  Don't get me wrong, I do not think this is likely.  Just that I can envision the scenario- whereas, I cannot envision a realistic scenario where states like MD and MA flip, even in landslides.  Of course, this landslide, if it were to occur, would have to happen soon, since VA may become completely un-flippable in a cycle or two.


@MT Treasurer

You have an interesting point in regards to WV- right now the eastern panhandle is growing, in fact, it's the only part of the state that's really growing outside of Morgantown.  I have to do some more research into this area, but most of the growth is in Berkeley Cty and in Jefferson Cty, which is part of the DC MSA obviously... which always seemed a bit silly to me.  I've never heard of anyone actually doing that commute, but that's only anecdotal and I suppose people must be doing it, since the MARC goes all the way up through Harpers Ferry to Martinsburg.  It's over 90 min by train if you do that commute, which sounds absolutely ghastly and unacceptable to me, but then again, when I was still living in NY I knew people that did something similar from the far reaches of Westchester and CT.  So perhaps it's only a matter of time, especially given the DC MSA is growing rapidly.

Never say never.

Though I'd imagine most the Interior Plains states (many of which haven't voted Democrat since LBJ's landslide win in 64') probably stay in the GOP column for the foreseeable future.

As for states that stay Democrat, I have a hard time imaging the GOP winning California and Maryland in the next 30 years.

I agree with you, and that is why I picked WY and OK first, as least likely to flip, as opposed to states such as WV or KY.  The next on my list might be ND, or maybe NE.  I think I am a little less confident about SD or KS, though not significantly so.

These states all have either no large metro area, or in some cases, few metro areas at all (OK does have OKC, the only MSA in the US top 50 in this region, although KS has a portion of the KC metro).  Most of these states are growing very slowly (only the Dakotas are above the US average, I believe).  I don't have statistical data on this unfortunately, but I suspect migration into these states from places like CA is very minimal, so the likelihood of a Colorado type situation seems quite low.  Industries in this region include agri-business, ranching, oil/gas, and so on, and I'm not sure any of these have ever really been Dem-leaning industries, especially the latter two.  

These plains states are also more ancestrally Republican, though I hesitate to bring this up since I'm not sure how relevant it is- after all, it is something of a fallacy to assume prior results will causally dictate future results.  But I suppose it's worth mentioning that none of these states have been competitive (outside of 1964) since 1948, and Dewey still won the Dakotas and NE/KS.  OK was competitive in 1976, that is the other exception I'm aware of.

So states like WV or KY, although it seems extremely unlikely given the current margins, and I would certainly not predict this to happen; I could envision scenarios with a tailor-made candidate and the right messaging at least making those states more competitive.  These scenarios may have a chance of less than 5% say, but I can still envision them.  Whereas a state like WY- I don't think it would flip in anything short of a complete realignment where the GOP bares absolutely no resemblance to the current party.

I don't think we can conclusively ever say that a state won't vote one way or the other.  I still believe given the right circumstances national landslides and realignments are possible. Even Obama in Indiana came out of left field.

Is everybody totally writing off the possibility of another 1912 at some point in our lives? Something like that could totally screw up any conventional wisdom we have about trends. Woodrow Wilson won Idaho with 32% of the vote in that state...something like that could flip MD or WY in the right circumstance.

Good question, twenty42, and that's actually something I haven't considered.

Since there is a fairly significant divide between factions in both major parties right now, I would say the risks of a 1912 are increasing.  In fact, 2020 might be the best chance of a "1912" that we've had in a long time, certainly in my lifetime.

The chances are still pretty low, however.  I would argue the two wings of the GOP were a little more distinct in that time with a deeper rift, and on top of that, there isn't a highly popular, well known, charismatic figure that is leading the Never Trumpers at the moment, at least in the same way that Roosevelt led the Progressives.

()

LA and MS before WY, or ND, or OK?

OR?  Before NY, or WA, or VT, or MD?

And MN is a swing state, LOL.

Very confused.

I believe that 2020 will be a realignment, and that the Democrats will realign in a more libertarian direction, adding the west to their column. The GOP will then move in a more Christian Populist direction, taking enough black and hispanic voters to make the deep south safe and turn northern urban states into swing states. OK goes democratic once during a landslide. NY and WA become swing states, as does WA.

Dems are going to move to the left if anything

Modified version.
()

I think the GOP could certainly become more populist, and in fact, will become more populist, but Christian populist?

I don't see any evidence of this.  Religiosity is significantly declining among all millennials, irrespective of party.  The current youth movement in the GOP is not Jerry Falwell style evangelicalism, but is Alt-Right nationalism, and this movement is not very religious at all, in fact, most of its adherents are probably atheists or at least agnostic.

I also don't see the Dems becoming a libertarian party, but even if they did, why is OR their strongest state, as opposed to any other Western states?  And MA?  RI?  Those are not libertarian states, in fact, quite the opposite.

I don't see CA ever voting Republican again. I don't see AL, inelastic as it is, ever voting Dem again-- or at least not in the next 40-50 years.

What I'm curious about is the Democract​ y'all imagine y'all winning Alabama.  Even Bill Clinton got blown out twice.

People focus more on the Plains states staying reliably Republican rather than the South because many of the Plains states have been ancestrally Republican for over a century whereas the South has been more prone to large shifts either direction.

I do think Alabama is a southern state that'll remain GOP for decades to come though. It's certainly worthy to be placed in the same column as states like Idaho and Nebraska in my opinion.

Yeah, for ME at least, I think TN, AL, OK and possibly even SC (sorry red avatars with a wet dream of THE COAST being in your column) as a different breed of currently solidly GOP Southern than the other states, especially WV, KY and AR (though really only WV stands out).  All either had a strongly Republican area before any realignment and/or shifted to the GOP at all levels much sooner than the more Appalachian ones I named.

Religosity might be rising among younger generations, and that it's not a majority will be why the GOP is a minority coalition.

OR won't be the strongest Dem state, but I'm not sure that the realignment will come in 2020.

MA and RI are liberal, wealthy, and non-religious. They stay fairly Democratic throughout.

If Lincoln Chafee got the strength that Bernie had against clinton and bernie fell flat on his face with the youth, I'd agree. The entire 2016 election showed that fiscal conservatism is a horrifically bad fit with millennials, which showed in both lowered turnout and weakened support for the perceived as corporate Clinton. Age gaps on Single payer and a host of other issues show that the democrats have far bigger realignment potential from Left Wing Populism than from Libertarianism. Perhaps if Bernie didn't run and Lincoln Chafee or Jim Webb got a weaker version of the support Bernie got, libertarian democrats might have been a possibility. In our timeline, thanks to a combination of good timing and playing on institutional distrust, he has guaranteed that the realignment will come from the fiscal left.

To put it simply:

To answer the question, only Utah and/or Wyoming will never vote democratic again.

Democratic: Idaho, Wyoming, Tennessee
Republican: Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island

Gary Johnson managed high support among millenials too, and would have gotten far high had he been sober for more than a minute during his campaign.

Two words:weed lmao.

Johnson got two demos: Weed-focused sections of Bernie Sanders group, and (mostly) suburban conservatives who hated Trump. They voted for social liberalism, on the one side, and fiscal conservatism on the other, but not both in the same demographic (Aside from Johnson 2012-2016 voters, who are the libertarian base and a small minority of Johnson 2016 voters).

Not to mention that the only reason he had an opening in the first place were Donald Trump's offensiveness and the fact that Hillary Clinton was thought by many parts of the electorate to be corrupt. The candidates' personal issues gave him a soapbox.

Every third major third party candidacy during the current alignment overperforming in the west probably is a good sign, too.

-AL, AK, ID, KS, MS, NE, ND, OK, SC, SD, TX, UT, WY

-DC, MN

Democrats are moving to the left and I can't see black people voting Republican in large numbers anytime soon.

Democrat's best candidates are libertarian moderates, and they can win with that.

For the Dems- New York, California, Illinois, DC

For the GOP- West Virginia, and a lot of those northwestern states like North/South Dakota, Idaho, and Wyoming. Maybe Kansas and Oklahoma too.

I could see New England or the South shifting at some point in the decades down the line, the Rust Belt and Southwest will probably remain competitive for at least the near future so I didn't include any of those either.

My only safe bet is Wyoming, as I just don't see any scenario where it will switch to the Democrats.

DC will never vote Republican

Oklahoma will never vote Democratic.

That's all I got.

Wyoming is an interesting case. It, the Dakotas, Montana, and Idaho all have very Republican populations, but also very small populations. Small enough that any of those states could get the Colorado or Vermont treatment from a large enough population shift. (of the five, Idaho is the most insulated, but not by much)

Oklahoma is reasonably large (comparable size to Connecticut. Not a big state, but not tiny either) and uniformly white, rural, and conservative. This means it is more immune to interstate population shifts than Wyoming and also would never vote for a Democratic Party that even remotely resembles the one that currently exists. It's not Appalachia, nor is it mormon. So Oklahoma is my answer.

If I had to make an additional answer for each party, I'd say California for the Republicans and Arkansas for the Democrats. Cali is huge, diverse, liberal, contains expensive media markets, and is used as a foil for cultural conservatives. Arkansas is not Appalachian nor does it contain a high black population. So of all the heavily GOP Southern states, I'd rate Arkansas as the least likely to support the Democratic Party in my lifetime.

"Put serious money down that a group of states will never vote any other way in a Presidential election in your lifetime"

()

"Chose a group of states that will have a good chance of never voting any other way in a Presidential election in your lifetime"

()