How will the States trend in the future ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

How will evolve the electoral maps in the next political cycle ? It will depend on demographic trends, on partisan ideology and on parties' strategies. Here are the different scenarioes I immagined :

Map key :

Shade	Red	Blue	Green	Yellow
Ligthest	Safe democratic, trending less dem	Safe republican, trending less rep	Lean republican, getting a swing state	Lean democrat, getting a swing state
Intermediate	Safe democratic, not evolving a lot	Safe republican, not evolving a lot	Swing state, getting lean democrat	Swing state, getting lean republican
Dark	Safe democratic, getting even more democart	Safe republican, getting even more republican	Lean democrat, getting safe democrat	Lean republican, getting safe republican

Scenario #1 :



Continuance of the trends observed since 2000 : Outer South become a safe republican zone, GOP does better and better in the Midwest. Democratic dominacy remains strong in the Northeast but not at the previous level. On the other hand, Democratic Party is helped by the migrations in the southern east coast who becomes much more competitive. On the west coast and the "hispanic belt" ( from California to Colorado ), dem strongly improve his dominacy, whereas in northern west it manages to break in traditional strong republican states.
Finally, the evolution is D -> R for Rust Belt and Midwest, and R -> D for Southern East Coast and West


Scenario #2



"Back to basics" scenario : both democrats and republicans decide to concentrate their efforts in the states where they are in decline : Democratic Party campaigns strongly in the outer south, but also in industrial states and in the democratic Midwest. At the same time, republicans manage to take backs the southern east coast and gaign ground everywhere in the West.
D -> R  : West, Southern east coast
R -> D : Outer south, Midwest


Scenario #3 :



"Southern strategy" scenario : democrats concentrate all their efforts in the South, neglecting other regions. They make so a lot of gains in both the outer south an the southeastern coast. But republicans will be able to reconquer many western and midwestern states. Furthermore, ideological compromises needed for democrats to regain southern states will be strongly criticized in most liberal states, and some democratic stronghold will get more close.
D -> R : West, Rust Belt
R -> D : Outer South, Southern East Coast


Scenario #4 :



"West-oriented" scenario, with democrats concentrating their campaign in the West, consolidating many western states and managing to make Texas closer. To do that, democrats need to get more libertarian. On the other hand, republicans progess everywhere else, especially in the Midwest.
D -> R : Southern east coast, Rust Belt
R -> D : Midwest


Scenario #5 :



"Liberal" scenario : Democrats choose to camapign as a radically progressive party. That permits them to gain ground in many liberal states. Elsewhere, it appears to be a catastrophical choice, with GOP enforcing them everywhere else.
D -> R : Southern east coast, West, Rust Belt
R -> D : Nowhere


Scenario #6 :



"Populist" scenario. With the economical crisis, democrats choose to get more and more a populist "Social democratic" party. Doing so, it does better and better in the Industrial states. At the same time, he's not appreciated by west libertarians.
D -> R : Southern east coast, West
R -> D : Rust Belt, Midwest


The scenario I personally think is the most likely to appear is the first. It's also the more favorable one fore democrats. The #2 could also be, that's why a lot of people think contrary to me that democratic South isn't dead, but I don't really think the advantage of returning in the Clinton era, who could mean a defeat if PV margin is too close. Scenarioes #3 and 4 have no chance to happen, because I don't see democrats campaigning in only one region and neglectiong all the others. The #5 would be politically catastrophical, because people is not yet ready to vote for a liberal party - but in 20 years, who knows ? Finally, the #6 has also many chances to occur, with democrats trying to take advantage of the economical crisis, but I doubt it will be a good political strategy after the end of crisis.

What do you think about that ? Discuss - if you want with maps.

[TeePee4Prez]

One mistake you make is you automatically default Pennsylvania as a populist state.  PA in the west is definitely going the way of the Southern Appalachians/Interior South politically and trending sharply Democratic in the east.  I would think PA is going to look like Oregon politically in the future- the Bob Casey's are a dying breed.

[pbrower2a]

Here are the November results:

Strong: won by 12% or more

(Obama won PA by as large a margin as he lost TX)

Medium: 5-12% wins

Pale: marginal wins.

Because John McCain won't be running for President in 2012, I figure it the most likely Democratic pickup in 2012 -- so much so that Obama will likely win it more easily than he will win Indiana or North Carolina in 2012. The Favorite Son effect is large enough to account for 10% of the popular vote in the state:

Anyone who claims to have inside data on how any of the states in the palest colors will vote without knowing how effective Obama will be as President and who his opponent will be in 2012 is a fool, as they were all more Republican than the national average even if they voted for Obama, so white them out:

.

Of those in white, Georgia, Indiana and North Carolina seem to have been trending Democratic (pale orange); Virginia seems to have had a very marked trend of voting more Democratic than it once did so it is a very pale pink; of the others only Missouri (pale green) seems to have been trending Republican (pale green). 

The rest? The Dubya era (due to Karl Rove's dictatorial tendencies)  has likely left a more pervasive and long-lasting distrust in people within the "Blue Firewall". Even with good economic conditions under a Republican President, the Democratic support within the states in deep or pale red will erode slowly if ever.  Good prospects for the GOP in any of these states is best described as long-term... at least a decade. Although reversion toward the mean is a usual expectation, nothing says how quickly it can happen.

Bill Clinton consistently won Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, and West Virginia, states in which Obama was absolutely clobbered. Obama is highly unlikely to win any of these states in 2012. Some Democrat who follows Obama might win these states back. Texas, South Carolina, and Georgia seem to be drifting Democratic for very different reasons, and I will color them orange. Missouri seems to be tending Republican for the same reasons as Arkansas and Tennessee, but to a lesser extent, so I will give Missouri a pale green. The sort of Democrat who can win back any of Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia certainly wins back Missouri, an easier pick-up for a Democrat than Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, or West Virginia but less likely than a hold of Indiana, Virginia, or North Carolina. Montana reverts to pale blue because it's highly unlikely to ever decide an election; NE-02 goes to yellow because the Nebraska state legislature could abandon the splitting of state electoral votes by district or could re-arrange the Congressional districts to ensure that districts are more homogeneous in their voting to the benefit of Republicans even if greater Omaha trends Democratic. Nevada and New Mexico went for Obama by double-digit margins, but they seem to have broken so very late, indicating that they are not as firmly Democratic as their margins indicated -- so they go to a medium red. Arizona, Florida, and Ohio are just too capricious to suggest any trend.

Any trend can be reversed, suggesting a rebound. 

.

So for 2012 the tendency looks as if Obama would win in this order of likelihood:

All states in deep red
All states in medium red
the one state in pink (VA) -- the line of victory in 2012
states in white (AZ, FL, OH)
states in pale orange (IN, NC, GA)
one district in yellow (NE-02)
states in pale blue or pale green (MO, MT)
states in orange (TX, SC)
any state in medium blue
any state in full green
any states in navy

In 2016 or 2020? It depends upon the Democratic candidate!

All states in deep red -- include Puerto Rico should it achieve Statehood.
All states in medium red
the one state in pink (VA) -- the line of victory in 2012
states in pale orange (IN, NC, GA)
the state in pale green (MO)
states in white (AZ, FL, OH)
NE-02 should the Nebraska state legislature maintain the electoral status quo
the state in pale blue (MT)
states in orange (TX, SC) or in full green
the congressional district in yellow (NE-02) -- caprices of a state legislature will decide this
any state in medium blue
any states in navy

[tmthforu94]

I think everyone has counted Republicans out very easily, thinking we will never win a large share. Let me remind you, that Johnson won in a landslide in 1964 over Goldwater. (I consider a landslide when one candidate has over 500 Electoral Votes) Just 8 years later, in 1972, Nixon beat McGovern in a landslide.
It's risky to say any state is safe. A lot could happen in a few elections. The Northest quickly went from solid Republican to solid Democrat. California has gone from a close state to solid Democrat. Indiana and Georgia have become swing states.
Who knows? In 2016, Massachusetts could be voting Republican, while Kansas and Oklahoma vote for a Democrat.
One bad step by a party will hurt them. But party's rebound, and I'm sure that eventually, the Republican party will be the majority.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think everyone has counted Republicans out very easily, thinking we will never win a large share. Let me remind you, that Johnson won in a landslide in 1964 over Goldwater. (I consider a landslide when one candidate has over 500 Electoral Votes) Just 8 years later, in 1972, Nixon beat McGovern in a landslide.
It's risky to say any state is safe. A lot could happen in a few elections. The Northest quickly went from solid Republican to solid Democrat. California has gone from a close state to solid Democrat. Indiana and Georgia have become swing states.
Who knows? In 2016, Massachusetts could be voting Republican, while Kansas and Oklahoma vote for a Democrat.
One bad step by a party will hurt them. But party's rebound, and I'm sure that eventually, the Republican party will be the majority.

In the 60's and 70's States were much less stable than today. Since 1984, nobody won Popular Vote by a more than 10-pts margin. The fact is that today's blue states are bluer and red states are redder than in 1964, even if we still have some swing states. That's why in 2016 Massachusetts will not vote republican and Oklahoma will not vote democrat.

[pbrower2a]

I think everyone has counted Republicans out very easily, thinking we will never win a large share. Let me remind you, that Johnson won in a landslide in 1964 over Goldwater. (I consider a landslide when one candidate has over 500 Electoral Votes) Just 8 years later, in 1972, Nixon beat McGovern in a landslide.
It's risky to say any state is safe. A lot could happen in a few elections. The Northest quickly went from solid Republican to solid Democrat. California has gone from a close state to solid Democrat. Indiana and Georgia have become swing states.
Who knows? In 2016, Massachusetts could be voting Republican, while Kansas and Oklahoma vote for a Democrat.
One bad step by a party will hurt them. But party's rebound, and I'm sure that eventually, the Republican party will be the majority.

2012? A GOP recovery of the Presidency will require a disaster for Obama or a huge miracle among Republican politicians.  All sorts of things are possible, including the emergence of a charismatic right-wing Republican who has no regional weaknesses (example: Ronald Reagan). I can't see any Republican as the new Ronald Reagan -- the whole package.

The GOP has dug itself into a deep hole in several states because of the "majority of a majority" policies of Karl Rove -- and in those states, voters will take a long time to forget how badly they were $crewed when Dubya was President.  That is a huge structural weakness for the GOP, and should any more develop for it then the GOP can't win Presidential elections. Erosion of the ill will that many in the Northeast, Midwest, and Far West hold toward the GOP Right will take time.  How much? Tell me. It also takes time for valid challengers to develop.

The Favorite Son effect is a reality, and should some conservative Republican from one of the states in the so-called Blue Firewall (colored Deep Red on my map) gain some respectability in the US Senate or as Governor... keep talking.  Some of the states in the Blue Firewall are either gigantic in electoral votes or are similar to some significant other states within the Blue Firewall. But such is long term talk. The two GOP Senators from Maine could never win the Presidency as Republicans. Specter and Grassley are just too old to have reasonable chances at the Presidency.

It is also possible that the Democrats will neglect constituencies that they long thought safe. Could the GOP try to win over the poor should the Democrats neglect them? Could the GOP abandon its resentful demonization of the poor with promises of greater generosity with welfare while the Democrats avoid discussing poverty because poverty has become a Third Rail of politics? 180-degree turns in Party policy have happened before. I must warn Democrats that the GOP has been winning over poor white people -- the majority of the poor are white, and the old assumption that income would dictate partisan loyalty is now debunked.  

I look at 2008, and I see John McCain as the strongest candidate that the GOP has had for President since Reagan... and he still lost. He lost to no small extent because Dubya had ensured that nearly 250 electoral votes were locked up for the other side.

All that I have said is the spectrum from the states most likely to vote for the Democratic nominee for President to those most likely to vote for the Republican candidate for President, that which candidate runs matters greatly (McCain was the only GOP candidate who could have won Arizona). I also believe that trends can themselves reverse sharply. The Democratic nominee of 2016 could conceivably re-establish the sort of constituency with which Bill Clinton won -- and recent strong GOP holds on several states could vanish.  

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Who knows? In 2016, Massachusetts could be voting Republican, while Kansas and Oklahoma vote for a Democrat.

Not in 8 years.  By 2028, maybe, but not by 2016.  It took Massachusetts 60 years to become a solidly Democratic state; it took the South an equally long time to make a major move to the GOP.  These sorts of shifts take a very long time, and won't be done by just one bad term for a Party.