It’s the year 2100. Which state has the longest streak of voting Republican?

[MT Treasurer]

And do you think Vermont’s 104-year streak of voting for the Republican nominee will be broken by one or more of UT/WY/ND/AK/KS/NE/OK/ID/SD in 2072?  

This is obviously extremely difficult to predict, but I’d guess ND (1968-2100), followed by AR (2000-2100).

You can also this on the Democratic side, of course.

[OSR stands with Israel]

WY

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Utah

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

The only state I don't think will vote Democratic at least once by 2100 is Wyoming, as it's been Republican the longest and so is less susceptible to any future realignments.


States that used to be Democratic but are now solidly GOP (Arkansas, West Virginia, most of the Deep South) are poor choices as they would easily flip in a future realignment.


As for the longest Democratic voting streak, I'd go with DC, obviously. I think every currently Solid D state will vote GOP at least once before 2100.

[Politician]

Wyoming

[RINO Tom]

Safest bet is a Plains/Mountain West state that hasn't drifted away much like Wyoming or ND.

EDIT: RE: Vermont's streak, no I do not think so.  Sadly, politics has been dumbed down from when VT gave the GOP some good old fashioned loyalty.

[AN63093]

And do you think Vermont’s 104-year streak of voting for the Republican nominee will be broken by one or more of UT/WY/ND/AK/KS/NE/OK/ID/SD in 2072?  

This is obviously extremely difficult to predict, but I’d guess ND (1968-2100), followed by AR (2000-2100).

You can also this on the Democratic side, of course.

ND is a good guess, and the only one I'd put money on.  Every other state you listed, I can come up with a plausible reason why they would vote D without squinting too hard (yes, even WY, although WY is probably the other least likely).

Could I ask you why you think AR?  I guess you're saying that Upper South states that are unlikely to have a metro area boom like some other Sun-belt metros are lost to the Dems for at least 100 years?  Not that I necessarily disagree with that, but if that's the case, then I'm not sure what differentiates AR from say, OK.  Or KY.  Or even maybe TN.

As far as Dem states go... none that I'd be as confident as with ND and the GOP.  If I had to pick one... hmm...  MD?  Maybe also WA and VA.  I wouldn't be confident with any of the northeastern states, though, due to the potential for demographic change.

[Xing]

Florida and Wisconsin (2016-2100), followed by Nevada (2020-2100), obviously.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

And do you think Vermont’s 104-year streak of voting for the Republican nominee will be broken by one or more of UT/WY/ND/AK/KS/NE/OK/ID/SD in 2072?  

This is obviously extremely difficult to predict, but I’d guess ND (1968-2100), followed by AR (2000-2100).

You can also this on the Democratic side, of course.

ND is a good guess, and the only one I'd put money on.  Every other state you listed, I can come up with a plausible reason why they would vote D without squinting too hard (yes, even WY, although WY is probably the other least likely).

Could I ask you why you think AR?  I guess you're saying that Upper South states that are unlikely to have a metro area boom like some other Sun-belt metros are lost to the Dems for at least 100 years?  Not that I necessarily disagree with that, but if that's the case, then I'm not sure what differentiates AR from say, OK.  Or KY.  Or even maybe TN.

As far as Dem states go... none that I'd be as confident as with ND and the GOP.  If I had to pick one... hmm...  MD?  Maybe also WA and VA.  I wouldn't be confident with any of the northeastern states, though, due to the potential for demographic change.

The only northeastern ones I’d have any confidence in are MA, NY, and NJ. I agree the other states are possible to see going GOP if the country at large polarized even more on race

If the country polarizes to that degree on race, Massachusetts would vote Republican too. I think all three of the states you mentioned will vote GOP at least once by 2100.

[AN63093]

And do you think Vermont’s 104-year streak of voting for the Republican nominee will be broken by one or more of UT/WY/ND/AK/KS/NE/OK/ID/SD in 2072? 

This is obviously extremely difficult to predict, but I’d guess ND (1968-2100), followed by AR (2000-2100).

You can also this on the Democratic side, of course.

ND is a good guess, and the only one I'd put money on.  Every other state you listed, I can come up with a plausible reason why they would vote D without squinting too hard (yes, even WY, although WY is probably the other least likely).

Could I ask you why you think AR?  I guess you're saying that Upper South states that are unlikely to have a metro area boom like some other Sun-belt metros are lost to the Dems for at least 100 years?  Not that I necessarily disagree with that, but if that's the case, then I'm not sure what differentiates AR from say, OK.  Or KY.  Or even maybe TN.

As far as Dem states go... none that I'd be as confident as with ND and the GOP.  If I had to pick one... hmm...  MD?  Maybe also WA and VA.  I wouldn't be confident with any of the northeastern states, though, due to the potential for demographic change.

The only northeastern ones I’d have any confidence in are MA, NY, and NJ. I agree the other states are possible to see going GOP if the country at large polarized even more on race

If the country polarizes to that degree on race, Massachusetts would vote Republican too. I think all three of the states you mentioned will vote GOP at least once by 2100.

This, basically.  And it's why I wouldn't be confident with any northeastern state.  The entire region, minus MA, had a R swing and trend in '16, some very dramatic in some cases.  Now I have no idea if that's evidence of a longer-term thing or not, but the point is, I can conceive of a longer-term, decades long trend that would eventually chip away at the margins.  It would take decades, probably not even in my lifetime, but then again, 100 years is a very long time.  In this case, I would tend to think MA would be the last to flip.

Now compare to MD, or VA or WA.  These states are just fundamentally different than the Northeast (due to demographics and other reasons that I won't go into unless someone is deathly curious) and I cannot even conceive of a trend that would cause these states to move towards the GOP, absent a complete realignment over an issue that we don't even know about yet and won't emerge until some 30-50 years in the future.

[Spark]

Wyoming

[Ilhan Apologist]

For Democrats, MN will almost surely vote R within the next 4 cycles.

I agree with your whole post except for this part. Aren't the metro areas in MN growing very rapidly, and the WWC areas shrinking? I'd expect that to overwhelm any GOP WWC trend.

[Wazza [INACTIVE]]

WY, ID, UT, OK, KS, NE, ND and SD.

[Dr. MB]

all of them after the Dear Leader institutes a thousand-year reich

[morgankingsley]

Republicans: Wyoming or Idaho

Democrats: DC

Every other state in the union I can either imagine voting for the opposite party at least ONCE in the 2000's century, or at least are impossible to have a streak longer than any of these three listed.

[Senator Incitatus]

Don't anticipate there will be a Republican Party in 2100.

[Grassroots]

WY, ID, UT, OK, KS, NE, ND and SD.

This. The plains states, not the south, is the heart of the GOP.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Iowa.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Iowa.

This is truly insane.

You're saying that Idaho, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Oklahoma, West Virginia, etc, are all going to vote Democratic for President before Iowa does again?

[Politician]

Iowa.

This is truly insane.

You're saying that Idaho, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Oklahoma, West Virginia, etc, are all going to vote Democratic for President before Iowa does again?

Presumably a joke/IndyRep imitation.

[brucejoel99]

Wyoming

[Alben Barkley]

What's holding me back on WY is that it's so small.  Consider the possibility one of the Fortune 500 tech companies decides to open a "Grand Teton" campus in WY down the road.  That alone could flip the state without anyone who currently lives there changing their vote.

Spot-on.

And I’d say this actually goes for the other sparsely populated plains/mountain states as well. The reason Democrats are so disadvantaged in the EC and Senate is that their voters are largely isolated to a handful of major urban centers in a handful of states. If they started spreading out for whatever reason, that could dramatically shift the politics of some of these small states pretty much overnight.

Also, the question assumes there will even be a GOP in 100 years. Once the Baby Boomers die off, they will be in serious danger of extinction unless they change radically, because I don’t see Millennials and minorities suddenly becoming conservative Republicans. The demographic and religious trends are not at all in the GOP’s favor right now. At the very least they will no longer exist in their current form in 100 years, and it’s possible a major re-alignment will occur by then.

[Senator Incitatus]

Québec.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

What's holding me back on WY is that it's so small.  Consider the possibility one of the Fortune 500 tech companies decides to open a "Grand Teton" campus in WY down the road.  That alone could flip the state without anyone who currently lives there changing their vote.

Spot-on.

And I’d say this actually goes for the other sparsely populated plains/mountain states as well. The reason Democrats are so disadvantaged in the EC and Senate is that their voters are largely isolated to a handful of major urban centers in a handful of states. If they started spreading out for whatever reason, that could dramatically shift the politics of some of these small states pretty much overnight.

Also, the question assumes there will even be a GOP in 100 years. Once the Baby Boomers die off, they will be in serious danger of extinction unless they change radically, because I don’t see Millennials and minorities suddenly becoming conservative Republicans. The demographic and religious trends are not at all in the GOP’s favor right now. At the very least they will no longer exist in their current form in 100 years, and it’s possible a major re-alignment will occur by then.

Of course the GOP won't exist in it's current form in 100 years, but it's definitely not going to go extinct either. my theory is the after losing a string of presidential election, the GOP will eventually realize what they need to do to become viable again. that's almost guaranteed to happen since we live in a two-party system, and I can't see any third party gaining major traction and replacing the GOP.

[bagelman]

Vermont (2056-2100)