Future voting patterns....

[12th Doctor]

In 15 years the next reapportionment will have occurred.
I put the map more like this:

Great map.  I think that Texas and Florida will gain 3, California will lose 1, Ill, PA and NY will all lose 2.  Texas will remain solidly Republican.  PA will treand more republican because the New Deals will be dead and gone and young entrepenurial(sp) types will take their place and I will be governor of North Carolina which will still trend Republican.  

[12th Doctor]

The big question though is: Will the Reps become more liberal or will the Dems become more ocnservative?

[12th Doctor]

My other senario is that the lose of population to the south will make the north (Michigan, PA, Ohio) more like the old south: rural, quite, secluded. This in turn will make the new south (North Carolina, Georgia, Virginia and Florida) more like the old north: urban, entrepenurial... entra...  GOD I can't spell that word, and more worldy, with Atlanta becoming the "New New York" so to speak.

[12th Doctor]

RightWingNut, how did you change the numbers on the state?  I would like to make a map of my own.

[12th Doctor]

My other senario is that the lose of population to the south will make the north (Michigan, PA, Ohio) more like the old south: rural, quite, secluded. This in turn will make the new south (North Carolina, Georgia, Virginia and Florida) more like the old north: urban, entrepenurial... entra...  GOD I can't spell that word, and more worldy, with Atlanta becoming the "New New York" so to speak.

Makes sense.  When you describe it this way I see it as a future with more 'moderate' states.  I would see the old north you mention trending GOP, and the New South staying GOP but more socially moderate.

Yeah that's the way I see it to be honest with you.  If this is the senario, then I think that the Reps would become more moderate on social issues, but not to the point of embracing abortion and things of that sort.

[12th Doctor]

Atlanta wont become the new New York anytime soon.  Creationism is still taught as science in biology classes there.

Not in a cultural way, so much as it will become a economic power house.

[12th Doctor]

Atlanta wont become the new New York anytime soon.  Creationism is still taught as science in biology classes there.

Not in a cultural way, so much as it will become a economic power house.

I don't see Atlanta becoming an economic powerhouse like New York unless some terrorist attack shakes up Wall Street and stocks need to somehow be traded differently.  Otherwise it would be too risky for corporations to be headquartersed in an area outside NY Metro.  

Perhaps the internet could change things somewhat.  Economists talk about hysteresis and how like minded corporations exploit other like minded corporations by being centered around eachother.  This way they can latch onto eachothers business.  If you've ever noticed furniture shops being located around eachother or a bunch of lamp shops in the same area...  your first thought would be why would so many stores that compete with eachother be in the same area...  it's because it's the most cost effective way to conduct business.  The same is true for large corporations...  

If the internet changes that somehow then NY will lose its calling for corporations to centralize in.  But I don't think it's gonna happen, the market is just too structured here and it would take a long time for a shakeup like that.  Of course if we get hit again with another terrorist attack, I won't hold my breath.  After 9/11 everyone said NY was done but it doesn't seem to have impacted NYC at all longterm.

You bring up some good points, but it has been the evelution of history that centers shift.  I'm not saying that New York will be irrelivant by 2020 by any means, but I think that the moving of Philip Morris from NYC to Richmond is proof of the fact that technology has drastically changed the way that we do business and companies will not be so shy about packing-up and if they see there interests better served else, where.  I think that NYC will start to loose to other cities as time goes on and if the current trend southward continues, then it is likely that Atlanta will benifit the most.

[12th Doctor]

Supersoulty that's a good point.  Sixty years ago NY had twice as many electoral votes as CA, now CA has nearly twice as many as NY.  And American Airlines, worlds largest carrier, moved from Chicago, IL to Fort Worth, TX in the late 90s.  But it's more of a Westward, or Southwesterly trend, I think.  Maybe that's nitpicking.  It brings up the point about how the Kerry people like to suggest they don't need any states in "The South" because Republicans racked up victories without winning any of those states for almost a hundred years!  But back in those days that region had only about 20% of the total, whereas now it may be more like 30 to 35% of the total, depending on what you count.

I am curious as to why you keep suggesting Atlanta though.  At first, I thought it was an obvious reference to Futurama (New New York, the lost city of Atlanta, etc.)  But now I going to go out on a limb and assume you're serious.  Why Atlanta, Georgia?

No I'm acctually serious about Atlanta.  It is the most well connected city in the world when it comes to transportation and communications wise it is the most connected city in the country behind New York.  It has become a BIG tech center and currently hold the head quarters of I think 16 Fortune 500 companies.  It is the best posstioned city to rival New York if the south-ward treand continues.

[12th Doctor]

How about the Most Static State - the state that changes the least.  

I suggest Pennsylvania.  

New York or Massechusetts.

[12th Doctor]

I'm too lazy to make a map, but here's my predictions:

NM will become heavily Dem
AZ will go from leaning Republican to leaning Dem
same with NV and CO
VA will become a tossup state
NH will stay Republican on local politics but will lean Dem in presidential elections
FL will become heavily Dem, especially if the Cuban vote continutes to desolidfy
TX will become winnable, especially since whites may be a minority in 15 years.

Georgia strikes me as getting MORE conservative and Republican, not less, although Atlanta is not conservative, it is a heavily Democratic city and much like New Orleans in relation to its surroundings, and I can't see NC trending Dem in national elections in 15 years, although it may become winnable again. But I'm expecting VA to have the biggest change. It probably won't even be considered south anymore, and will have more in common with Maryland than Alabama.

The Cuban vote isn't desolidifying, on the contrary, in 2000, Bush got a higher percentage of it than any candidate since Nixon.

[12th Doctor]

Don't you think thats because of the picture of the SWAT team guy pointing a automatic rifle at a 5-year old being held by his uncle in his own house? The administration of that event has passed now, and so have passions.

I think that that may have had some effect, but I also think that the fact that Bush spent A LOT of time reaching out to the Cubans and hispanics in general had a lot to do with it too.

[12th Doctor]

Ok, you are all probably right - PA is trending GOP, and Indiana is very politically static.

I was actually just thinking of PA as demographically and economically the most static state, forgetting the political focus here.

Like I said before though, the New Dealers are dying off fast, so the demographic of this state is going to change a lot real soon.  It could fall as fast as 3 EV's by 2010.  And the state will swing GOP as the 30-49 Reaganites take over.

[12th Doctor]

No body answered my question:  How do you change the numbers for the EV's of the states?

[12th Doctor]

This is what I see for the EC by the 2020 election




The colors don't mean anything, I will post a map with the trends tomorrow.  Not enought time tonight, but these are my EC predictions.

[12th Doctor]

The SW will not trend Dem.  The most growth in Nevada, for instance, isn't from hispanics, but from middle class white who are moving to Las Vegas, which has an increasingly vibrant and diverse economy.  Colorado, same thing except Denver, not Vegas.  The growth among hispanics mirrors the economic groups of the whites.  GOP holds the west.

As for the south, it is more GOP today than ever in history.  Occaisonal Dem strength is not a sign of them making inroads, but a sign of their last dying breaths after holding the place for 150 years.  Case in point, as Texas grew and became more diverse and metropolitan to become what it is today, the state suddenly decided to throw out Anne Richards in favor of George W. Bush in 1994 and handed the Republicans control of the state legislature in 2002.  When Texas was the backwater rural state of Lyndon Johnson, it was reliably Democrat, but it has voted Republican for President in every cycle since 1976, even when the Dems put a Texan on the bottom of the ticket in 1988, a southerner at the top in 1980 and 2000,  and two southerners on the ticket in 1992 and 1996.  As the Carolinas and Georgia become urban and wealthy, don't expect them to vote like Washington and New York.

Finally, Florida.  This state leans strongly GOP for everything except President.  The reason, as someone said is the FDR era Dems who retired to Florida and support Dems on the Social Security issue.  They will die off or Social Security will go bankrupt, whichever comes first, and the Dems will lose their only card in FL.  GOP holds.

Note that I said that the corols on my map don't mean anything.

[12th Doctor]

I'm too lazy to make a map, but here's my predictions:

The Cuban vote isn't desolidifying, on the contrary, in 2000, Bush got a higher percentage of it than any candidate since Nixon.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-acubapoll21mar21,0,2025102.story?coll=sfla-news-sfla

The Cuban vote is in fact desolidifying if we are talking about future voting patterns...  a majority of Cubans born in the United States plan to vote against Bush this election...  While Bush is mainly popular in the over 65 anti-Castro community that is dying out.  Don't ask me how but I have a lot of connections in the Cuban community of South Florida and I know this group is definitely not going to go for Bush by a wide margin again...  

Also, if we are talking about the cuban community as a whole...  Cubans barely went for Bush last time.  The Cuban community in New Jersey and New York is staunchly democratic...  Lets not forget only half of Cubans live in the Miami metro area... the ones outside of there are not as unified in their voting...  

And like someone said the Elian Gonzalez thing galvanized and unified the Cuban vote last time... if you look at the last few elections before then the Cuban vote even in Florida had been trending dem...  Bush's brother being governor of Florida also probably helped...  If you factor out those two influences and had a controlled environment the vote would look very different...

Besides Cubans are now a minority of the Florida hispanic population so unless they vote as a 90% block the way black voters in the state do, they won't have much impact.

To be honest, I sometimes forget that there is a Cuban community outside of FL and that they do tend to Dem.  So I'll give you that.  If these statistics are true, then it does seem that you have a point there, because I can honestly say that I hadn't seen anything like them before.  So my mistake.

But, I believe that the pull that racial politics now has on our nation will soon disipate.  Why you ask?  The emergence of Hispanics as the #1 minority group in the country possed an enourmous conundrum to the Dems.  They have to find a way to reach-out to young Hispanic voters without alienating young black voters.  I simply don't think it can be done.  The result will be that, one way or the other, the Dems will have no chioce, but to stop playing racial politics and if that occurse then there will be a huge change in the electorate.

I honestly believe that the first black or Hispanic president, whomever he or she maybe, will be a Republican, because the Republicans will be the only party that won't play it up into a big deal.  

If that person is a Democrat then the Dems won't be able to handle the concept maturely.  I don't mean all Dems, but I'm sure that the Dem leadership would be unable to do so.  If they do that then they will lose and the cause of having a non-caucasian president will probably be held back another 20 years.

No offense meant, that's just the way I feel.

[12th Doctor]

Supersoulty,

I agree. The first Black or Hispanic President of the United States will come from the Republican Party. Why? Because the Republicans will nominate a minority candidate who is an American first, a Republican second and a minority third. The Democrats will nominuate someone who is a Democrat first, a minority second, a "citizen of the world" third, and an American fourth!!!

Exactly my point.

[12th Doctor]

Miguel Estrada 2016!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[12th Doctor]

I think his legal expertease recommends him much better to the judiciary rather than the executive branch, but then I'm not a lawyer.  He is a well-respected man, but unfortunately he hasn't passed muster with certain members of the senate judiciary committee.

i think that he will be on the Supreme Court someday, that was more of a joke than anything.  He can't run anyway, being born in Venuzuela(sp) and all.

[12th Doctor]

Orrin Hatch has introduced a bill addressing that.  

Which part?

[12th Doctor]

Oh, let me see if I can dig up a link.  Basically I was referring to his newfound fondness for Gov. Schwarzennegger.  So he wants to amend the US Constitution so that foreign-born citizens of the USA can be elected President.  I don't know whether it has any realistic chance of getting through the pipeline, though.

Oh, yeah, I remember now, we talked about this.  I would be in favor of a clause that would make the requirement 30 years living in the United States and you have to have come here and become a citizen before the age of 18.