United States presidential election, 2048

[Del Tachi]

Senator John S. Brannon (R-MS)/Congressman Stephen Grigorev (R-NY)--277 Electoral Votes, 48.9% of NPV
Vice President Jonah E. Myers (D-OR)/Senator Helen Soros (D-CA)--259 Electoral Votes, 48.8% of NPV
Others--0 Electoral Votes, 2.3% of NPV

I tried my best to guess on the EV counts--its a combination of current trends with my own gut feelings. 

How do y'all like the map?  Just based on your first impressions and already held notions, does it seem like a possibility based on current political trends?

Please note that TX, NC, NH, PA, NJ, IA and ID were all won by a candidate winning less than 50% of that state's vote--these are the swing states. 

[5280]

Why does Wisconsin, Minnesota and the other midwest states have small electoral votes?  I like the outcome so far.  

I would give Wyoming, Montana and the Dakotas more electorals. California is going to lose population, with the way their debt is played out, taxes and regulation. They're the new Michigan of 2050. Colorado, Idaho and Utah are the new California from the influx of west coast residence.

[Del Tachi]

I see it as being unlikely that California's EV totals wouuld come crashing down, their boreder with Mexico will always provide a steady stream of new residents. 

However, maybe giving them 58 districts was a bit of a streach. 

[old timey villain]

I'm not about to predict how states will vote 36 years from now. States change and political parties change.

But I think examining the electoral votes for each state is cool. I see you're predicting continued growth for the sunbelt and a stagnating rust belt and east coast. This will probably continue to happen but my 2048 I think you'll see a slowdown in growth in the south due to climate and water issues.

By 2048 I'm guessing Texas will rival California in population so the number of electoral votes in each state might be closer to one another.

North Carolina and Georgia will also probably be population powerhouses. I'm guessing there will be at least 12-13 million people in both states, maybe even more. I agree with NC having slightly more electoral votes than Georgia. I think NC will surpass GA in population in the next 20 years or so but they'll always be close to each other.

The rustbelt stabilizes but population growth will still be stagnant so a continued loss of electoral votes seems probable.

Give SC maybe 2 more electoral votes and it seems about right. Its location wedged between GA and NC portends greater population growth.

North Dakota is tricky. I suspect a minor population boom in the next decade or two. So maybe that bumps it up to 5 electoral votes.

14 EVs for Arizona looks about right, give or take one or two. Arizona's population growth has largely been driven by cheap housing and migration out of California, but without a lot of economic growth it seems unsustainable in the long term.

[renegadedemocrat]

It is difficult to determine what the ideologies will be of the two parties in 38 years. I think as far as the electoral vote total goes, it is about right. I think Illinois and Massachusetts will stop losing rapid amounts of population in around 10 years, same with New York. I can see states like Montana, North Dakota, and Vermont gaining votes, as I can see their populations growing with the amount of people moving to places with small populations. Texas and California will be close to each other, and I think Colorado may be a tad higher.

[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.



 

[adrac]

I think Utah and Montana are the natural expansion of Democratic presence in the West over Idaho, but this map looks cool. I love speculative stuff like this and have certainly tried at it myself.

[Platypus]

As ordered by the following measures:

Top 10 for undergraduate degrees, D.
Bottom 10, R.

-----Of those remaining:

Top 5 for percentage of population Non-Hispanic whites growth 2000-2010, R.
Bottom 5, D.

-----Of those remaining:

Top 3 by % for McCain, R
Top 3 by % for Obama, D

-----Of those remaining:

Top 3 for union membership, D.
Bottom 3, R.

-----Of those remaining:

Top 3 highest religious population, R.
Bottom 3, D.

-----Those remaining are swing states.

Oh, wait, that's THIS election.

Just imagine what those figures will be in 2048 and you've got your map, basically.

[Platypus]

(obviously, Hawaii and Montana stick out, but Hawaii is always against the trends. If you want to get it down to just one swing state, go by % of population serving in the military - highest R, lowest D. Iowa goes red and Florida goes blue.)

Is your state highly educated?

Yes -> D
No - > T

Is your state among the least educated?

Yes - > R
No - > T

Is your state getting whiter, more quickly than most?

Yes - > R
No, the opposite - > D
No, but not getting less white rapidly - > T

Did your state vote overwhelmingly for one of the major party candidates in the previous election?

Yes, the Republican - > R
Yes, the Democrat - > D
No - > T

What are the numbers on union membership like?

High - > D
Low - > R
Middling -> T

Is your state very religious?

Yes - > R
No, it is relatively irreligious - > D
Neither - > T

Does your state have a high number of people serving in the military?

Yes - > D
No - > R
Middling - > T

Do more people live in urban areas than rural areas in your state?

Yes - > D
No - > R
It's all about the suburbs - > T

Are both your Senators from the same party?

Yes, R - > R
Yes, D - > D
No - > T

Over the last three elections, which party has received a bigger swing, relative to other states, in their favour?

The Republicans - > R
The Democrats - > D

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Worst prediction ever. The 2048 Republican nominee is obviously gonna be Governor of Hawaii, Abbott Ferdinand.

Uh no. You're clearly forgetting that Ferdinand will be 68 years old in 2048. The GOP needs a young gun. They need Washington Junior Senator Frank North. He'd be great. Did you know his great great great great great great great^135 grandfather discovered the North Pole?

[traininthedistance]

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

[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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Here's my map for a close 2048 election that assumes the current social issues have largely become irrelevant politically then.  I'll leave the prognostication over how apportionment will be done to others.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Worst prediction ever. The 2048 Republican nominee is obviously gonna be Governor of Hawaii, Abbott Ferdinand.

Uh no. You're clearly forgetting that Ferdinand will be 68 years old in 2048. The GOP needs a young gun. They need Washington Junior Senator Frank North. He'd be great. Did you know his great great great great great great great^135 grandfather discovered the North Pole?

North is Elitist RINO. He's practically Gaffe Central. Remember when he was in DC watching a redskins game and he said "Who's winning, the Blue or the Gold pitcher?". My god, this guy doesn't even know football? How could he win? Ferdinand is moderate, but respected on both sides. He should pick New Mexico Senator, Jack Alvarez. He's only 37 and a powerful Republican newcomer, who even as an unknown state senator, defeated hyper-popular Dem Governor Franco Marsh by 18 points. He has campaign skills. Plus Frank North's ancestors also wiped out the indians, so that definitely and concern.

A: Can you say tokenism? We already had Castro in '24, so it's not like it's going to be historic or anything.

B: If you have to pick a Hispanic, Jack Alvarez is not your guy. The only thing people know about him is that he hates the Mars bill. I think the Republicans should pick either Charlie Wilkes or that Senator from North Carolina, Janine Qin. She's Asian, always good, and she's good with the base. She might not have the experience, though.

On a more serious note, I have a suspicion that current trends will not continue for that amount of time, electoral-wise.

[traininthedistance]

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.

Ooh, good catch on Atlanta's water issues.  I had forgotten.

You're probably right that I'm underestimating Texas, much as that pains me to say.  My predictions of the SW (especially Nevada and Arizona) not gaining as much as recent trends aren't only predicated on hard environmental caps, but the sense that in-migration is naturally slowing anyway post-bubble and is unlikely to pick up where it left off even before you consider resuource constraints.  Case in point: everyone expected Phoenix to overtake Philly as the 5th largest city in the 2010 Census, but it didn't!  Granted, it almost certainly will by 2020, but that should be a sign that things are slowing even before you hit the wall.

[Adam Griffin]

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

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Worst prediction ever. The 2048 Republican nominee is obviously gonna be Governor of Hawaii, Abbott Ferdinand.

Uh no. You're clearly forgetting that Ferdinand will be 68 years old in 2048. The GOP needs a young gun. They need Washington Junior Senator Frank North. He'd be great. Did you know his great great great great great great great^135 grandfather discovered the North Pole?

North is Elitist RINO. He's practically Gaffe Central. Remember when he was in DC watching a redskins game and he said "Who's winning, the Blue or the Gold pitcher?". My god, this guy doesn't even know football? How could he win? Ferdinand is moderate, but respected on both sides. He should pick New Mexico Senator, Jack Alvarez. He's only 37 and a powerful Republican newcomer, who even as an unknown state senator, defeated hyper-popular Dem Governor Franco Marsh by 18 points. He has campaign skills. Plus Frank North's ancestors also wiped out the indians, so that definitely and concern.

A: Can you say tokenism? We already had Castro in '24, so it's not like it's going to be historic or anything.

B: If you have to pick a Hispanic, Jack Alvarez is not your guy. The only thing people know about him is that he hates the Mars bill. I think the Republicans should pick either Charlie Wilkes or that Senator from North Carolina, Janine Qin. She's Asian, always good, and she's good with the base. She might not have the experience, though.

Wow, I knew you were a troll, but I didn't think you were STUPID!!! Charlie Wilkes wouldn't even win his own state, and would get trampled by Ferdinand or North in the primary! Qin is only 37 and her parents were born on Venus, so she's an anchor baby. I'm just saying atleast Ferdinand is reasonable. He supports Polygamist Civil Unions, at least!

I don't see why everyone thinks North is so great. He's the Republican Party's comedic sidekick. And nobody's going to vote against Qin because of the Venusian thing. She can play that up with Democrats and independents, they eat that up. Ferdinand's obviously going to run, but I just don't think he can win.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Worst prediction ever. The 2048 Republican nominee is obviously gonna be Governor of Hawaii, Abbott Ferdinand.

Uh no. You're clearly forgetting that Ferdinand will be 68 years old in 2048. The GOP needs a young gun. They need Washington Junior Senator Frank North. He'd be great. Did you know his great great great great great great great^135 grandfather discovered the North Pole?

North is Elitist RINO. He's practically Gaffe Central. Remember when he was in DC watching a redskins game and he said "Who's winning, the Blue or the Gold pitcher?". My god, this guy doesn't even know football? How could he win? Ferdinand is moderate, but respected on both sides. He should pick New Mexico Senator, Jack Alvarez. He's only 37 and a powerful Republican newcomer, who even as an unknown state senator, defeated hyper-popular Dem Governor Franco Marsh by 18 points. He has campaign skills. Plus Frank North's ancestors also wiped out the indians, so that definitely and concern.

A: Can you say tokenism? We already had Castro in '24, so it's not like it's going to be historic or anything.

B: If you have to pick a Hispanic, Jack Alvarez is not your guy. The only thing people know about him is that he hates the Mars bill. I think the Republicans should pick either Charlie Wilkes or that Senator from North Carolina, Janine Qin. She's Asian, always good, and she's good with the base. She might not have the experience, though.

Wow, I knew you were a troll, but I didn't think you were STUPID!!! Charlie Wilkes wouldn't even win his own state, and would get trampled by Ferdinand or North in the primary! Qin is only 37 and her parents were born on Venus, so she's an anchor baby. I'm just saying atleast Ferdinand is reasonable. He supports Polygamist Civil Unions, at least!

I don't see why everyone thinks North is so great. He's the Republican Party's comedic sidekick. And nobody's going to vote against Qin because of the Venusian thing. She can play that up with Democrats and independents, they eat that up. Ferdinand's obviously going to run, but I just don't think he can win.

Qin is kind of hot, so that may be good for her, but the Venusian immigrants hate her for denouncing her heritage. Honestly, the Republicans need Ferdinand. Every political strategist agrees with me. Qin would get a lot of crap for her radical anti-Robot Rights activism. She wants to set up different Water Fountains, different Benches, and even different charging stations! Humans and Robots should be equal! Period!

Uh, the Republicans aren't exactly known for their robot-rights history. I admit, she'd be crushed by someone like Myers or Jimenez, but she's right-wing enough to win in the primary.

[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.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I predict a near-landslide for the Democrats, unless I come along and help te Republicans clean up their act by educating peole.  The Republicans win in a landslide if that happens.