Post-Realignment Electoral Map?

[SingingAnalyst]

Merkin's Maxim: When in doubt, predict that the present trend will continue.

The present trend is for the GOP to become increasingly white, Christian (Evangelical or Catholic), non-Hispanic, and less educated (and eventually, poorer), while the Dems become ever more diverse and cosmopolitan.

This, I think any trend over the next 15-25 years will involve some of the following:

KY, OH, PA, WV becoming even more Republican than they already are.

NC eventually lean D or even safe D, like VA.

AZ, GA, and TX gradually becoming more Dem as their urban areas grow and become more diverse.

MI, OR, WA staying about the same, but with an ever more stark division within each state.

CA becoming even more Dem.

Dem strength will be even more concentrated in cities and wealthier and more diverse suburbs, while the GOP will do best in poorer suburbs and rural areas.

Maybe this:

Dem-327 (per current EV distribution)
GOP-211

[Person Man]

Merkin's Maxim: When in doubt, predict that the present trend will continue.

The present trend is for the GOP to become increasingly white, Christian (Evangelical or Catholic), non-Hispanic, and less educated (and eventually, poorer), while the Dems become ever more diverse and cosmopolitan.

This, I think any trend over the next 15-25 years will involve some of the following:

KY, OH, PA, WV becoming even more Republican than they already are.

NC eventually lean D or even safe D, like VA.

AZ, GA, and TX gradually becoming more Dem as their urban areas grow and become more diverse.

MI, OR, WA staying about the same, but with an ever more stark division within each state.

CA becoming even more Dem.

Dem strength will be even more concentrated in cities and wealthier and more diverse suburbs, while the GOP will do best in poorer suburbs and rural areas.

Maybe this:

Dem-327 (per current EV distribution)
GOP-211

If this is where we are going, Dems need to just camp out in Texas and Florida for the next 4 years.  Without them, this is an EC loss, even more so after 2021.

There is a temptation to say Dems don't have enough until those whom they logically target are through some sort of truble ahead, are ready to listen. Think of it when the socially moderate voters of places like the 'burbs of Atlanta and Dallas and the smaller to mid size cities of Florida finally stop worrying about saving money and about making it again it again.

[Person Man]

Explanation later.

REALLY interested on what happened with Vermont and Kansas. The rest I can understand.

Or the NW for that matter.

[GlobeSoc]

Explanation later.

Arkansas and Missouri are confusing to me

[Person Man]

Explanation later.

REALLY interested on what happened with Vermont and Kansas. The rest I can understand.

Or the NW for that matter.

That had to come almost entirely from the shift in upper income voters. Clinton won by over 20 points in both states among the highest recorded income bracket (100k-200k) in the CNN exit polls. Bush came within a point of winning Oregon in 2000 and 5.5 points of winning Washington that same year. A non-southern strategy GOP candidate could turn the states into swing states.

I just don't see how Colorado would in the future vote that much differently than the NW. They are both a combination of West Coast Socially Liberal Digerati in their cities and suburbs and white struggling hard workin' stiff Populist Republicans in the boonies with El Paso county, with its importing of even more white struggling hard workin' stiff Populist Republicans from Southern (the Fundamentalist Church(es)) and Southernized (the service) institutions keeping Colorado open to the right Republican at the right time.

Colorado has a lot of immigrants, but the West Coast has a lot of immigrants, too.  I guess those immigrants in the NW would be more open to the type of Republican who talks about a 44% marginal tax rate on the super-rich, an emphasis on importing "skilled" workers, and over-the-counter birth control.. you know, the type of Republican who is ok with stuff except for abortion and tries to be a sort of right-wing "Third Way". Maybe also a lot of those Populists that come to work on the bases and megachurches in Colorado Springs might for a new Bill Clinton?

[Person Man]

Florida: look at Rubio's numbers. He won 48% of the Latino vote, so in a non-southern strategy, the Latino vote will swing between the two parties. they'll be leaning Democratic throughout the next realignment, but they won't be solid. FL Latinos have had people like Rubio and Canteberra-Lopez in state office, so I think FL Latinos will be a little better off for the GOP. So I hesitate it put it as red.

MO and AR are lily white states that have strong southern traditions so they will probably stay lean GOP.

2020/2024-2032/2036 will see the map basically a deep atlas red as we work through the realignment, possibly.

What happens in Arizona to keep it only lean Dem like Florida instead of being safe Dem like it's next door neighbors?

There are definitely a large number of aspirational and neoconservative-thinking minorities in Florida. A lot of Cubans are technically Europeans, too.

[AN63093]

As I've alluded to a couple other places, such as here; and here; I think as of now, there are two outcomes that are more likely than the rest.  With the caveat, of course, that "more likely," does not, and should not be conflated with, "probable."  Not to go all chaos theory on everyone here, but small events in the present could have substantial, unforeseen consequences in the future that will not be fully appreciated until decades from now.  Not to speak of massive, catastrophic events, with presumably even larger consequences.  So accepting that this exercise is mostly baseless speculation, my two scenarios are as follows:

1.  TT's generational theory is correct and a realignment occurs with a catalyst being a major economic crisis that unravels the Reagan neo-liberal economic order and results in a system with low polarization and differences between the parties being mostly economic in nature.  Whites are mostly GOP, minorities D, but both parties make significant in-roads with all racial/ethnic demographics.  In this system, I think there would be a significant number of swing states, landslides would be relatively common and both parties would be competitive in nearly every state.  NY, TX, and FL are the hardest fought states.  PA and IL are close too, but are losing EVs with each passing census.  Toss-ups are indicated; and about 6-10 more states would be swing states.

2.  TT's generational theory may be correct, and an economic crisis may occur, but even so, all of this is overshadowed by increased and extremely intense polarization rooted in racial stratification of the parties, leading to a South Africa type system.  The GOP is essentially the White party, the Dems are the "others."  Neither party platform is significantly different on economic issues, and all debates eventually lead back to identity politics.  After a few decades the country is at serious risk of Balkanizing and racial/ethnic strife and violence are relatively common.  Elections are almost entirely just a turnout battle in the 4 toss-ups between whites and minorities.  There are no swing states except the lighter shaded ones in 50-50 years.

PV percentages are not literal... lighter shading just indicates closer states.

[AN63093]

S&C:

Well I think we should be careful to group all Upper South states together, or Deep South states.  We are a long, long way away from the Solid South days and each and every Southern state has developed and gone off in different directions.

For example, FL has become a mix of classic Old South, cookie-cutter middle class areas with people moving in from the Mid-West, retiree communities, old Jews from NY, and Latin America.  

VA, once an Upper South/border state, is now just a sprawling government bureaucracy mothership and mid-Atlantic state or the southern most extension of the BosWash megalopolis.  The only evidence it was even Southern at one time are the few old aristocratic plantation homes still standing, that are now all museums.

GA is now mostly characterized by the Atlanta MSA, which is one of the fastest growing metros in the country, with heavy amounts of minority and millennial growth.  The Nashville MSA is like an Atlanta in miniature (growing even faster actually).  I was amazed last time I was there, with how much construction and new high rises are going up.  It's not big enough to change the whole state of TN like Atlanta is with GA, but these two cities have a lot more in common than Atlanta may have with say, Birmingham, even though one is in the Deep South and the other is the Upper South.   Or take Nashville and Louisville, a city that is also (arguably) in the Upper South.. I'm quite familiar with both cities, and they have very little in common... Nashville, again, resembling an Atlanta in miniature, Louisville resembles very much a Mid-Western rust belt city and has a lot more in common with a place like Cincinnati.

And then you have a place like MS- with practically no growth and no large MSAs, basically all rural.

Point being, I think the days of the monolithic South are quite over, and we have to take each state on a case-by-case basis.  This is why, you'll see above in my maps, especially in a world where we de-polarize, I have the South as somewhat checkerboard.  I would agree with you that some Deep South states would flip first (notice I have MS before TN), but in the battle of Upper South states, consider that some states have hot growth MSAs with increasing millennial populations (TN, and especially NC), and others do not (KY, WV).  I think this makes quite a bit a difference.  Other places like SC and AL just have so many economic conservatives that have moved in, it's tough to see them going D before a place like KY in my opinion (this is assuming a world with de-polarization, mind you).  Even NC has a fair amount moving in, which I think keeps it quite polarized (notice it's a toss up state in both my scenarios).  But contrast with KY, where I think very few economic conservatives migrated in over the 20th century and it votes R mostly for cultural reasons.

On the other hand, if we see increased polarization, this could be one scenario in which most of the South stays together, minus NC and GA.

I've read about your theory on Roe weakening, and while it is quite intriguing, I'm not sure why you believe it will shift Southern white voting towards the Dems.  For example, irrespective of what happens to Roe, what if polarization not only continues, but intensifies, on say, racial lines?  This is one of the scenarios I think is increasingly likely, and I have a map for above.  I'm not going to go on a long tangent on why I think this is likely, but suffice to say that one reason is because youth movements on both sides of the ideological spectrum are increasingly rooted in identity politics (e.g., the Alt-Right and SJWs, respectively), while I see less enthusiasm for more classical economic-rooted factions, and even less enthusiasm for religious based movements or movements based on morality issues.  Rather, the main cleavage point is ethnic identity.

[Suburban Republican]

After witnessing all this discussion, I decided to make my own map.

I was going to write an explanation, but decided that'd take forever.

[OSR stands with Israel]

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

That's not a realignment.

[OSR stands with Israel]

That's not a realignment.

If you consider 2016 the beginning of a realignment it is.

[GlobeSoc]

That's not a realignment.

If you consider 2016 the beginning of a realignment it is.

The trends were too similar to the rest of the elections of the 2000s to be a realignment.

[Person Man]

I am guessing a "realignment" means that there has been a "universalization" of opinion on policy on one set of issues and that there is an increased emphasis on another set of issues.


1980 saw the universalization of neoliberalism and the new contention of post-material issues, for example.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

As Republicans, then, are making inroads into Hispanics and Asians, even as the Democrats begin to cut into the Upper South's WWC voters and working class minorities.

How do rural whites vote in this scenario? Are they more GOP or less?

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

As Republicans, then, are making inroads into Hispanics and Asians, even as the Democrats begin to cut into the Upper South's WWC voters and working class minorities.

How do rural whites vote in this scenario? Are they more GOP or less?

They must be voting much less GOP in this scenario, at least in the South.

[Idaho Conservative]

Merkin's Maxim: When in doubt, predict that the present trend will continue.

The present trend is for the GOP to become increasingly white, Christian (Evangelical or Catholic), non-Hispanic, and less educated (and eventually, poorer), while the Dems become ever more diverse and cosmopolitan.

This, I think any trend over the next 15-25 years will involve some of the following:

KY, OH, PA, WV becoming even more Republican than they already are.

NC eventually lean D or even safe D, like VA.

AZ, GA, and TX gradually becoming more Dem as their urban areas grow and become more diverse.

MI, OR, WA staying about the same, but with an ever more stark division within each state.

CA becoming even more Dem.

Dem strength will be even more concentrated in cities and wealthier and more diverse suburbs, while the GOP will do best in poorer suburbs and rural areas.

Maybe this:

Dem-327 (per current EV distribution)
GOP-211

FL, TX, GA, and AZ will be swing, not blue states.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Merkin's Maxim: When in doubt, predict that the present trend will continue.

The present trend is for the GOP to become increasingly white, Christian (Evangelical or Catholic), non-Hispanic, and less educated (and eventually, poorer), while the Dems become ever more diverse and cosmopolitan.

This, I think any trend over the next 15-25 years will involve some of the following:

KY, OH, PA, WV becoming even more Republican than they already are.

NC eventually lean D or even safe D, like VA.

AZ, GA, and TX gradually becoming more Dem as their urban areas grow and become more diverse.

MI, OR, WA staying about the same, but with an ever more stark division within each state.

CA becoming even more Dem.

Dem strength will be even more concentrated in cities and wealthier and more diverse suburbs, while the GOP will do best in poorer suburbs and rural areas.

Maybe this:

Dem-327 (per current EV distribution)
GOP-211

FL, TX, GA, and AZ will be swing, not blue states.

By that point, I'd assume that Georgia and Arizona would at least be Lean D, probably similar to modern Virginia.

[Sherrod Brown Shill]

Well, I only just realized this post is months old after I finished this, but whatever.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Well, I only just realized this post is months old after I finished this, but whatever.

That doesn't look like much of a re-alignment to me.

[Kamala's side hoe]

As I've alluded to a couple other places, such as here; and here; I think as of now, there are two outcomes that are more likely than the rest.  With the caveat, of course, that "more likely," does not, and should not be conflated with, "probable."  Not to go all chaos theory on everyone here, but small events in the present could have substantial, unforeseen consequences in the future that will not be fully appreciated until decades from now.  Not to speak of massive, catastrophic events, with presumably even larger consequences.  So accepting that this exercise is mostly baseless speculation, my two scenarios are as follows:

1.  TT's generational theory is correct and a realignment occurs with a catalyst being a major economic crisis that unravels the Reagan neo-liberal economic order and results in a system with low polarization and differences between the parties being mostly economic in nature.  Whites are mostly GOP, minorities D, but both parties make significant in-roads with all racial/ethnic demographics.  In this system, I think there would be a significant number of swing states, landslides would be relatively common and both parties would be competitive in nearly every state.  NY, TX, and FL are the hardest fought states.  PA and IL are close too, but are losing EVs with each passing census.  Toss-ups are indicated; and about 6-10 more states would be swing states.

2.  TT's generational theory may be correct, and an economic crisis may occur, but even so, all of this is overshadowed by increased and extremely intense polarization rooted in racial stratification of the parties, leading to a South Africa type system.  The GOP is essentially the White party, the Dems are the "others."  Neither party platform is significantly different on economic issues, and all debates eventually lead back to identity politics.  After a few decades the country is at serious risk of Balkanizing and racial/ethnic strife and violence are relatively common.  Elections are almost entirely just a turnout battle in the 4 toss-ups between whites and minorities.  There are no swing states except the lighter shaded ones in 50-50 years.

PV percentages are not literal... lighter shading just indicates closer states.

More or less the difference between Michael Lund's 2014 and 2016 realignment predictions

[Skill and Chance]

More of the Deep South/Gulf Coast than just GA/TX should give out by the time New England flips and New York gets competitive again, and I would expect GA and TX to be Lean D by that time.  I'm thinking LA and MS would go before SC or AL (under normal circumstances).  Also, not convinced at all that Florida trends Dem from here.  A massive influx of 2:1 Trump Midwestern retirees continues there.

Dem upsets going forward will be more like Jones and Bel Edwards (red states with anomalously religious medium/large cities) and less like Tester, Heitkamp, and Manchin (populists in very rural, agriculture/energy states).

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

More of the Deep South/Gulf Coast than just GA/TX should give out by the time New England flips and New York gets competitive again, and I would expect GA and TX to be Lean D by that time.  I'm thinking LA and MS would go before SC or AL (under normal circumstances).  Also, not convinced at all that Florida trends Dem from here.  A massive influx of 2:1 Trump Midwestern retirees continues there.

Dem upsets going forward will be more like Jones and Bel Edwards (red states with anomalously religious medium/large cities) and less like Tester, Heitkamp, and Manchin (populists in very rural, agriculture/energy states).

South Carolina will certainly flip before Louisiana or Mississippi, but otherwise I agree with this.

[King Lear]

This is what I think a even Presidential Election map will look like in the 2030s.

Basically, the trends of 2016 continue, with Republicans flipping the entire Midwest except Illinois (which will remain Safe Democratic, due to the fact that heavily Democratic Chicago is holding its population while heavily Republican downstate Illinois is shrinking rapidly), while Democrats will turn Arizona, Florida, and North Carolina into true Tossups due to their diversifying populations (right now Florida, Arizona, and North Carolina Lean Republican). However Texas and Georgia will still be Lean Republican states (their Likely Republican today), which along with the flipping of the entire Midwest except Illinois, will keep Republicans competitive at the presidential level much longer then expected. Meanwhile, the Northeast (except New Hampshire, Maine, and Pennsylvania) and West Coast will remain Safe Democratic and states such as Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico will solidify their Democratic leans. Overall, this future electoral map is not that great for Democrats because even with the diversification of the Sun Belt they still won't flip Texas and Georgia (due to their staunchly Conservative White populations), and because of them losing the ability to win Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Maine, Ohio, and Iowa due to Uneducated Whites trending even more Republican (they'll be voting 80-20 Republican by then while their educated counterparts will be voting 50-50), their only route to victory will be sweeping the three Tossup states of Arizona, Florida, and North Carolina with high Nonwhite turnout, and if they fail to do that they'll probably be winning the popular vote and losing the electoral collage a lot.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

This is what I think a even Presidential Election map will look like in the 2030s.

Basically, the trends of 2016 continue, with Republicans flipping the entire Midwest except Illinois (which will remain Safe Democratic, due to the fact that heavily Democratic Chicago is holding its population while heavily Republican downstate Illinois is shrinking rapidly), while Democrats will turn Arizona, Florida, and North Carolina into true Tossups due to their diversifying populations (right now Florida, Arizona, and North Carolina Lean Republican). However Texas and Georgia will still be Lean Republican states (their Likely Republican today), which along with the flipping of the entire Midwest except Illinois, will keep Republicans competitive at the presidential level much longer then expected. Meanwhile, the Northeast (except New Hampshire, Maine, and Pennsylvania) and West Coast will remain Safe Democratic and states such as Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico will solidify their Democratic leans. Overall, this future electoral map is not that great for Democrats because even with the diversification of the Sun Belt they still won't flip Texas and Georgia (due to their staunchly Conservative White populations), and because of them losing the ability to win Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Maine, Ohio, and Iowa due to Uneducated Whites trending even more Republican (they'll be voting 80-20 Republican by then while their educated counterparts will be voting 50-50), their only route to victory will be sweeping the three Tossup states of Arizona, Florida, and North Carolina with high Nonwhite turnout, and if they fail to do that they'll probably be winning the popular vote and losing the electoral collage a lot.

That isn't a realignment.