Might Election 2020 look something like this?

[Reignman]

Image Link

[Alcon]

I'm assuming you're inverting colours (blue to Democrats, and red to Republicans)...because I doubt there would be a huge switch like that immediately.

As for the rest...a few stand out:

- Unless economics really change, it's hard to see New Mexico being that different from Iowa and Wisconsin.
- It's kind of hard for me to think of a force that would cause the West and Southeast to move Democratic while the Northeast moved Republican.

I suppose it's possible, though.

[Verily]

I don't think so. I have a feeling that the parties themselves won't change much at all, and any changes will be determined by demographic trends. That leaves us with Democratic states losing population, but the Democrats slowly advancing in nearly every swing state to give a map like this one:

60% - Safe
40% - Lean
Grey - Toss-up

Note that, while in 2008 this map would favor the Democrats, after two reapportionments it will probably be close to even.

[Colin]

I don't think so. I have a feeling that the parties themselves won't change much at all, and any changes will be determined by demographic trends. That leaves us with Democratic states losing population, but the Democrats slowly advancing in nearly every swing state to give a map like this one:

60% - Safe
40% - Lean
Grey - Toss-up

Note that, while in 2008 this map would favor the Democrats, after two reapportionments it will probably be close to even.

Why would Indiana have any major electoral change from now in Presidential voting? So a few populist Democrats win seats in Indiana in one of the worst years for the Republicans in the last 20 years. I don't think that will start some ball rolling where Indiana will go into the "lean" column. I somehow doubt that a state that last voted Democratic in 1964, voted for both Wilkie and Dewey, and was only won by Grover Cleveland between the Civil War and 1912. Indiana is one of those Republican states that has been Republican since, basically, the beginning of time. Not saying that it couldn't happen I'm just saying that Indiana will probably stay the same as it is now for a good time to come.

[Rob]

I somehow doubt that a state that last voted Democratic in 1964, voted for both Wilkie and Dewey, and was only won by Grover Cleveland between the Civil War and 1912. Indiana is one of those Republican states that has been Republican since, basically, the beginning of time.

This isn't true- Indiana was a crucial swing state in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Seymour nearly carried it, and he was beaten pretty soundly by Grant. Tilden carried it. Hancock lost it by a point. Bryan came fairly close in 1900 and very close in 1908.

It was more or less a tossup after the Civil War, and it's sheer luck that the Republicans managed to carry it so often.

Not that I'm arguing Indiana will shift, understand- now its political leanings are set in stone, and it's a Kansasesque machine state.

[Verily]

I don't think so. I have a feeling that the parties themselves won't change much at all, and any changes will be determined by demographic trends. That leaves us with Democratic states losing population, but the Democrats slowly advancing in nearly every swing state to give a map like this one:

60% - Safe
40% - Lean
Grey - Toss-up

Note that, while in 2008 this map would favor the Democrats, after two reapportionments it will probably be close to even.

Why would Indiana have any major electoral change from now in Presidential voting? So a few populist Democrats win seats in Indiana in one of the worst years for the Republicans in the last 20 years. I don't think that will start some ball rolling where Indiana will go into the "lean" column. I somehow doubt that a state that last voted Democratic in 1964, voted for both Wilkie and Dewey, and was only won by Grover Cleveland between the Civil War and 1912. Indiana is one of those Republican states that has been Republican since, basically, the beginning of time. Not saying that it couldn't happen I'm just saying that Indiana will probably stay the same as it is now for a good time to come.

Maybe not, maybe 2020 is too soon. Still, the fastest-growing area of Indiana is the fringes of Chicagoland, and it's decidely Democratic.

[12th Doctor]

Any map that puts more than 80% of the states in one camp or the other is simply ridiculous... any map that tries to predict circustances based off of "trends they see" Democrat, Republican or otherwise are bound to be wrong for the plain and simple fact that this stuff tends to have less to do with how states change than how the parties change.  No party is going to be in the minority for too long, because they will either change their stances to cover their losses, or they will emphasis (or even discover) a new issue that they can use to regain power.  This is the exact same reason why there will probably never be a viable 3rd Party... eventually, the two parties shift to cover their losses.

[12th Doctor]

P.S.  That's why I don't do maps that predict what paties will be in power where in the future.  I think maps on population shift and demographics and how that effects the political landscape are perfectly valid, but using those treands to predict which party will be in power is a fool's errand.  For all we know, we might go back to a time more like the 1970's when both parties were far more idologically diverse.

[Verily]

P.S.  That's why I don't do maps that predict what paties will be in power where in the future.  I think maps on population shift and demographics and how that effects the political landscape are perfectly valid, but using those treands to predict which party will be in power is a fool's errand.  For all we know, we might go back to a time more like the 1970's when both parties were far more idologically diverse.

Possibly, but if you had read my post, you would see that I find that highly unlikely. The very nature of a polarized political state like the current one demands that said polarization maintain itself for at least a reasonably long period of time. While the 1970s and 80s were politically diverse, the last time before then when we had political diversity within the parties was in the 1920s, five decades previously.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

LOL@the Indiana comments here. Not that I would've predicted differently.

[Smid]

Indiana is about the only prediction I made about the 2008 election that was anywhere near daring and actually came right. I think I still have the right to boast about this. This quote from back in February and only about a week after the other comments about Indiana were made in this thread:

Now... this is a long call to make, but I think that if this is the case, Indiana going to be a surprise state in November. It has over 100 casualties in Iraq (see http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/states/ ) and had seats changing hands in 2006. I'm still doing some analysis on swings in the state there over the past few elections, but I think that it's going to either be quite close - and maybe even go dem for the first time in goodness knows how long.

In 2004, Bush received 60% of the vote to Kerry's 39% (I haven't looked at Congress figures yet). In 2006, Republican Congressional candidates received 49.90% of the vote to the Democrat Congressional candidates' 48.74%.

[Lunar]

[Holmes]

Don't be a hack.


Kansas will be Democratic.

[pbrower2a]

(modified to show Kansas as Democratic):

Don't be a hack.


Kansas will be Democratic.

That looks like another Era of Good Feeling. That lasted only for four years after the demise of the Federalist Party. If the Republican Party is in a death spiral, becoming so Far Right that it becomes an ineffective fringe party along the lines of the American Independent and States' Rights Parties, then the real action will be in the Democratic Party primaries and the party Convention instead of in the general election. That can work in a parliamentary system, as in South Africa where the African National Congress is a Big Tent party analogous to the political system that we could have for a couple years, but American history suggests that the Big Tent party will itself split.  The Democratic Party would likely split into two parties, and the relevant lines for 2024 might be more interesting:



Here's my suggestion for 2024, which could be more interesting:

Red:  Social Democrats
White: Christian Democrats
Green: "Swing" states


If it looks strange to see America split between "Social Democrats"  and "Christian Democrats" -- that suggests that American politics will split along lines more typical of Europe. But note that the cultural splits in America remain.

Presidential contests are again contestable as they might not have been in 2012, 2016, or 2020.

Note that the map is irrelevant if the US goes to direct popular election of the President or to division of states/ electoral votes along Congressional districts. Also I would not be surprised if one or all of Puerto Rico, the American Virgin Islands, and Guam becomes States of the Union. 

Note well that the divide still looks much like that of 2008, with a clear firewall that keeps the more liberal and secular parts of America separated from those in which Mormonism or Christian fundamentalism is strong, with the political middle  of states in between: typically the more rural states of the North, but also some of whose regional identity is shaky.  Perhaps the determiner of victory is who can appeal to rural interests or who can work the edge politically.

Criteria?

States that went for Obama by more than 10% are colored red, as is the norm for socialist or social-democratic parties elsewhere. White is one of the colors of the US flag, and one of the usual colors for right-wing causes (example: the White cause formerly of Russian emigres). Green? I could have used gray, blue, or yellow... Other colors are not available.

I colored New Mexico and Nevada red because both voted for Obama by more than 10% in 2008; Iowa and New Hampshire just missed that threshold. New Hampshire is much more libertarian than its neighbors and is less likely to support Big Government if the alternative doesn't try to impose cultural conformity. 

The political divide is likely to reflect a pattern from David Hackett Fischer's Albion's Seed, an American history that suggests that the parts of America settled from New England, the Dutch colony of  New Netherland, southeastern Pennsylvania and its cultural satellites are likely to be more secular and cosmopolitan in their viewpoints than those settled from the Virginia Tidewater south and the Backwoods.  Exceptions: Mormon country is less secular and cosmopolitan; Virginia, Florida, and perhaps North Carolina have had shaky connections to the South in recent years, and New Mexico and Arizona have too much Latino influence to fit into the real South. States of split settlement (most obviously Ohio and Indiana) are swing states in the future, as are the Northern agrarian states (Montana, the Dakotas, Nebraska, and Iowa) that 'lack' the giant cities that would push them consistently into the liberal, big-government camp. If one is in New Jersey eight-lane expressways are often inadequate, cops have to be paid well enough that gangsters can't bribe them cheaply, and education is costly because teachers have other ways of making a living; in North Dakota, the expressways exist to connect Winnipeg or Seattle to Kansas City or the Twin Cities, crime is unorganized, and teachers have few alternatives to teaching. I have discussed New Hampshire.

[tmthforu94]

LOL at the Indiana discussion...
It's so hard to predict the future. The next 4 years could change everything. It could lead to decades of Democrat domination, or it could lead the Democrat party to ruins, and the Green party could because major. No one knows for sure. Heck, Libertarians and Greens could be running this country in 20 years.

[The Ex-Factor]

LOL at the Indiana discussion...
It's so hard to predict the future. The next 4 years could change everything. It could lead to decades of Democrat domination, or it could lead the Democrat party to ruins, and the Green party could because major. No one knows for sure. Heck, Libertarians and Greens could be running this country in 20 years.

Last scenario = apocalypse

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm not sure of that, but my feeling is that Obama's election means the beginning of a long period of democrat government, like the 1932-1968 period was. Obama will also win his re-election, and his successor ( Biden, Clinton - why not Edwards ? - ) will win, not by a landslide, but a solid majority ( 54, 55% like the two last Roosevelt re-elections ). I imagine a map like this :

[Josh/Devilman88]

If the parties stay the same:

If the republican move to the left just a little on social views:

If the Democratic Party move toward the middle on socail views:

If both parties move toward the middle socail views:

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

That is a lot of very wrong answers.

[Politician]

Safe R Georgia did not age well.

[Thunder98 🇮🇱 🤝 🇵🇸]

The Indiana comments did not age well at all

[fluffypanther19]

this thread is absolutely hilarious; really shows that most of us have no idea what the hell we are talking about lol

[Burke Bro]

- Unless economics really change, it's hard to see New Mexico being that different from Iowa and Wisconsin.
- It's kind of hard for me to think of a force that would cause the West and Southeast to move Democratic while the Northeast moved Republican.

I suppose it's possible, though.

*sigh*

This is a great example of why predicting the future is near-impossible. 

[DPKdebator]

- Unless economics really change, it's hard to see New Mexico being that different from Iowa and Wisconsin.
- It's kind of hard for me to think of a force that would cause the West and Southeast to move Democratic while the Northeast moved Republican.

I suppose it's possible, though.

*sigh*

This is a great example of why predicting the future is near-impossible. 

Half of me looks at these maps from 10 years ago and thinks "wow, some of these points actually kind of happened," but then there's other stuff that's really off.