Talk Elections

()

Maybe something like this:

()

Here is my prediction

()

Only problem is that with all things being equal, Florida is trending Republican.

I'm not going to even try to predict what it'll be like in 2030...

Exhibit A:

()

Exhibit B:

()

Even with Bush's gain this year, Florida is still trending Democratic slowly in the long run.  One election doesn't change a trend.  Look at Florida in 1988 and look at it today.

Re: Erc's maps?
They're the 1948 and 1972 results, of course, but why were they posted? Why not 1980 and 1956, say, sticking with the 25 years theme?

()

Very interesting. Seeing as (IMO anyway) your analysis is usually worth reading, I'd be interested to know why you think that.

I'd say this looks very reasonable.

This is basically my current view of what would happen if the Thomas Frank view of the party was revived. I'm not surprised that you are interested in it, though I am not at all sure that it what would necessarily happen. I threw it in there for no small part in to contrast between the other predictions. One of the biggest trends in American politics over the past 5 years you see is the rise of economic liberalism and the decline of social liberalism. As with other trends I see this not only as a U.S. trend but a worldwide trend, starting with the Mexican peso crisis in 1994. That was the first major blow to the neoliberal economic establishment (the first major blow for that establishment also came in Latin America, with the success of Augusto Pinochet's economic policies, which were later followed by leaders of the UK, US. Russia, China, and 100 other countries. This may be one not-so-oft-told reason why the left hates him in particular so much).

This (economic liberalism, or as you say in Europe leftism) is going in the opposite direction of what the other predictions are hinting at. They suggest that the libertarian-leaning southwest could trend Democratic. The problem is if economic liberalism is finally reviving after 35 years of crisis (which would fit any theory of cyclical economic performance or of self-balancing economics), then the Democrats will soon move in the opposite direction, and all the predictions based on Clinton's "triangulation" formula will collapse. If John Kerry had had the will to smash the free-trade consensus in a Goldwateresque fashion by proposing protective tariffs, for example, he might have won Ohio. It's just a matter of time before the Democrats figure this out. I just thought it was funny all the other projections are based on the late 1990s paradigm of the future when reality has been going in the other direction the past 5 years or more. That's not to say they're necessarily wrong, but they're not necessarily right either.

The recent trends could be a backlash to the 1990's, or it could be something deeper, especially given the long term trends of economics and religion. The Nixon win of 1968 was seen as just a backlash to the '60s, but it turned out to not just be a backlash but a realignment. Under these circumstances the social scientists will begin to point out that since 1932, the more populist party has always been the majority party. Thus, both parties would adopt relatively socially conservative views, ala what Gore tried but failed to project in 2000, in order to be seen as as populist as possible. Under these circumstances, the battle is fought out over economic issues, with higher-income states falling on one side and lower-income states falling on another side. And I made my map based on a balanced election taking place under those circumstances.

From what I can extrapolate it seems that thefactor's map seems to show a shift with the Democrats becoming moderate populists and the Republicans becoming moderate libertarians. That would account for why the South and Great Plains has turned red while the west coast has turned blue. Seems also that the Republicans pick up more of the Black vote while the Hispanic vote remains about the same as it is now. Party loyalty or, possibly, a successful liberal third party in the Northeast allows states like New York and Vermont to stay in the red column while latte liberals go back into the Republican voting block.

Interestingly the same sort of thing seems to be happening over here; some of the rhetoric (and policies) coming from Labour have been much more leftish than the previous two elections (they're being more open about the re-distributive stuff as well) while the Tories have not tried the usual "we'll slash spending and cut yer taxes" trick they've been using since 1979 as much as normal (Flight got fired for suggesting that they'd do that if they won the election...) which would seem to indicate that it's not electorally popular anymore. The decline of social liberalism in the U.K is very obvious from UKIP's strong showing in last years Euro elections, and the increasly hardline stances politicians are taking on immigration/multiculturalism/crime/asylum seekers/etc.


Interesting theory that


Also very interesting


IMO his entire strategy was wrong; he shouldn't have bothered with states where the economy hadn't been doing all that bad, he should have concentrated more on the rust belt.


Maybe they have; they got Casey to run for Senate after all.


Very interesting. Thanks for the analysis.

So latte liberal = libertarian?

It's kind of werid how the pc can break down at times.  I'd say on average they would be more liberal socially and conservative ecnomically, but yet in a washed down, suburbanite kind of way.

The same thing

()
()
()
()
()

Thing is some things are predictable if your willing to think the unthinkable; 1948 clearly showed that a large rift had opened up between the Deep South Democrats and the national Party for example.

It's an interesting analysis, factor, yes.
I'll agree the other maps are much too cautious (and much too stuck on keeping the two parties roughly similar, btw.) Just look at King's every-24-years timeline.
Some minor points (to Al as well as you): I don't think the law & order rhetoric and especially the anti-immigration rhetoric we're getting over here is really socially conservative. Certainly it doesn't appeal only to social conservatives. Nor is it to any extent whatsoever founded on christian teachings.
And I don't even want to try and count how many times I've pointed out that Pinochet's government did not, never had any intention to, govern according to the rules of neoliberal economics. Pinochet nationalized all the utilities and most major industries - something Allende had wanted to do but had not dared. And he didn't pay compensation if the owners happened to be Chileans. (Which provided an extra bonus for the government when much of it was sold off again towards the end of and just after Pinochet's reign.) The copper mines, Chile's main export and until quite recently only really relevant export, had been under state control for donks before Allende, and remain so now. What he did do is boost private agricultural exports (wine and fruit, mostly), by easy state-guaranteed credits to entrepreneurs.
As I said, very minor to your argument, actually.

I tend to think that it is (up to a point) in the U.K, mainly because the last time there was a lot of it (early '70's) was effectively a backlash to the percieved (and IMO innacurate; 20 million people watched the Black and White Minstels every week in the '60's...) liberalism of the '60's.



Very true. We'll only find that out for sure on friday morning, but I have a suspicion that while a lot of socially conservative people have liked the vicious attacks on immigrants, a lot of others have been appalled by it. Have to wait... oh... 48 hours or so to find out though.


Very true, but the thing is, it wasn't seen like that by the rest of the world.

Yes actually Preston is rather right. Many of these people, who are usually upperclass suburbanites used to be Republicans back when the party could be described as more moderate. Many of these people fled the party after the Reagan era do to the growing influence of the social conservative wing and the so-called religious right wing. They are economically centre-right and socially libertarian, or to put it in terms that you know jfern liberal. If the Republicans moved into a more moderate libertarian position many of these would come back into the fold of the Republican Party, especially if the Democrats move to a more Populist position.

Al- your welcome.


I would consider that law & order and immigration are social issues, only in the sense that they are not economic or foreign policy issues. They certainly don't involve religion, but I tend to categorize any issue that isn't primarily either economic or foreign policy as a social issue. For the most part, I identify less libertarian (tough-on-crime and anti-immigrant) policies as relatively conservative on the social axis, though of course this suffers the pitfalls of all left-right axis thinking. And certain tendencies such as the Democrats' anti-smoking/gun control bent would seem to go against the grain. But I think they're generally speaking the exceptions.
 

I won't pretend to be an expert on Pinochet, I know very little about him... and I hadn't seen your previous posts, I didn't intend to discount them. One of the things I had picked up though besides his brutal authoritarianism was that he was one of the first to implement the neoliberal economic policies. Here's what wikipedia says on his economic policy:

"Once in power, Pinochet immediately set about making market-oriented economic reforms. He declared that he wanted "to make Chile not a nation of proletarians, but a nation of entrepreneurs". To formulate his economic policy, Pinochet relied on the so-called Chicago Boys, who were economists trained at the University of Chicago and heavily influenced by the monetarist policies of Milton Friedman.

Pinochet launched an era of economic deregulation and privatization. To accomplish his objectives, he abolished the minimum wage, rescinded trade union rights, privatized the pension system, state industries, and banks, and lowered taxes on wealth and profits. Supporters of these policies (most notably Milton Friedman himself) have dubbed them "The Miracle of Chile", due to the 35% increase in real per capita GDP from 1960 to 1980 (later, from 1980 to 2000, it increased by 94%, but Pinochet was no longer in power after 1990). Opponents such as Noam Chomsky dispute this "miracle" label, [5] (http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199011--.htm) pointing out that the unemployment rate increased from 4.3% in 1973 to 22% in 1983, while real wages declined by 40%. However, Pinochet did manage to address at least part of these problems during his final years as President, since unemployment was down to 7.8% in 1990. The shortage problems during the final years of Allende's administration were also remedied.

The privatizations, cuts in public spending and anti-union policies generally had a negative impact on Chile's working class and a positive one on the country's more wealthy strata.

The former President Allende's economic policy had involved nationalizations of many key companies, notably U.S.-owned copper mines. This had been the primary reason for the external (mostly American) opposition to Allende's government. Much of the internal opposition to Allende's policies was from business sectors, and recently released US government documents confirm that the U.S. funded the lorry driver's strike, [6] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,260382,00.html) which was to a significant degree responsible for the chaotic situation just before the coup."

Not feeling you on Ohio.  I would put Wisconsin and possibly North Carolina as tossups.

()

Here's mine.

Well I didn't allow myself any tossups - heck if I did that there'd be tons of 'em on there. :)

I didn't just mean on this board, or on the net at large. :) He certainly did sell himself like that. Well, to a certain extent that's true of course...although they were not the policies that Milton Friedman, the IMF etc have since been touting everywhere. Their version of the story - the neoliberal myth, if you prefer.no.yes.yes.not sure.Late in his term. After having nationalized them before.dittoyes.You'll notice that Pinochet was in office from 1973...and throughout the first two years or so of his administration, GDP fell IIRC. Most of this increase probably occurred in the 60's...if these figures were 1950-70, they would have to be considered extremely low. Forty percent is a hell of a lot. Not sure if that figure is genuine.true.

Which are largely a mythMost of the copper mines was in Chilean government's hands (the army's, in fact) long before Allende. But yeah, Allende nationalized the rest. They remain in government control now. This had been the primary reason for the external (mostly American) opposition to Allende's government. Much of the internal opposition to Allende's policies was from business sectors, and recently released US government documents confirm that the U.S. funded the lorry driver's strike, [6] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,260382,00.html) which was to a significant degree responsible for the chaotic situation just before the coup."
true enough. The CIA also tried to engineer a coup a while before the actual coup, and spoke to Pinochet in that context. That the actual coup was actively CIA-supported (which most people around the world believed at the time) is not true, however.

NC has moved righter over the years...

Well not really.  It has fluctuated a bit but is really very stable. 
Democrat vote percentages in NC over the last 25 years:
2004 - 43.58%
2000 - 43.20%
1996 - 44.04%
1992 - 42.65%
1988 - 41.71%
1984 - 37.89%
1980 - 47.18%

That's almost grotesquely stable! I note the Dem increase between 92 and 96 had no effect whatsoever in NC.

Probably a sign of the lack of a political realignment during the last 25 years. A realignment doesn't necessarily affect every state, but it affects enough of the states to change the overall dynamics. One reason I wouldn't want to speculate on 2030, is that a realignment is more likely than not before then, IMO.

There was a realignment, only it occured in 1968, so you won't see it show up on a timeline beginning in 1980.

I think that was my point. :)

There has been debate on other threads about whether the realignment occurred in 1968 or 1980. The key is whether 1972 or 1976 is the out of place election. Either way, none has occurred since, resulting in the relatively stable voting patterns at the presidential level noted by opebo.

You'll note there was a big swing in NC between 1980 and 1984 - while national movement was minimal. As far as NC is concerned then, how about 1984 as the true realigning election?

I love how everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that the issues and thus, political alignments are going to change.  Also, if any one party is getting killed badly in the elections, they will eventually change their possitions until they are once again electable.  The only issue is "where in that cycle will we be at this time"?

That is why I see to major rise in third parties.  If either of the two major parties lose a significant amount of their base to one of the third parties, one of the two will find a way to take those votes away from the third party.

Anyway, these maps show a lack of imagination, above all, (except The Factor's map).  Not really even imagination as they do the lack of ability to anticipate how conditions will change.

Well, obviously. None of us is a soothsayer, after all.
But yeah, those who posted maps seem to be th ones imagining very little change. Perhaps because, the more change you envisage, the less feasible making a map appears.

I want to thank you for the info you provided, BTW.  You are quoted in my paper.

Yeah, I've read that already. :)

This is a general trend map.  On the whole, I think that the states in blue are treanding more conservative (when you balance economic and social issues) and the red states more liberal.  The grey states will remain about as is.

The three major trends that I see causing the conditions my map perscribes are:

1) The conservative party (presumably the Republicans, but not nessesarily) will break into the inner-cities and start picking up a better percentage of the vote, as more older cities begin to renew themselves.

2) The liberal party will gradually start to do better in areas that have large suburban populations and as the inner-ring suburbs of the old cities become the new depository for all of the problems that haunt the inner-cities now.

3) General population patterns.

()

*edit*
General trend map - d'oh!

And NM may end up trending conservative, depending on which issues are important (social and foreign policy favors a shift right, economic ones a shift left).

I know what you're thinking... Ian, you crazy mofo!  WTF are you thinking?  Well, to tell you the truth, this map is pretty unlikely, but I'll stand by it.  The parties will centrist-ize, I do believe, and social issues will be put on the backburner.  An election based solely on economic issues, which is what I believe the future of American politics will be and following trends creates this map:
()

This is a trend map, right? So red means "more liberal than now", but not necessarily on the Liberal side?
It's an interesting map, and they're interesting assumptions up there that may be true (although the COnservative party would have trouble getting the, presumably largely "Latte Liberal" vote of those new City conservatives), but there are some states that I'd definitely disagree on even on these assumptions. New Hampshire and Vermont I'd put in Red. Rhode Island in Blue. New Jersey in Grey. And so on. Georgia in Blue.

Here's my trend map.  Most of the country is gray, as it will not chang all that much, certainly not enough to change the way the gray states now lean. 
Blue is moving Republican
Red is moving Democrat
Shades indicate rate of change from insignificant to rapid.
()

Georgia moving *towards* the Democrats? You're having a laugh aren't you?

Well, good point - it is funny you picked out the one thing I regretted after posting it.  Well that and maybe a couple of changes in shading.  With Georgia I was thinking in the long run it will be going the way of North Carolina/Virginia.  Quite a leap I'll admit.
Corrections:
()

I think you're whole theory is probably deeply flawed, but seeing as it's one a lot of other people have come out with there's no point attacking you'res especially

Texas is moving towards the Democrats?

I guess when you've reached bottom, there's no way but up.  Still, I haven't seen Texas Democrats show any inclinations of moving from that position.

Your map is optimistic for Democrats, to say the least.

Yes, I made a few corrections, but the title of this thread is '25 years from now'.  That's 2030.  I am pretty confident the Democrats will have a bigger percent of the vote in Texas by then - but as you said, they're at the bottom now.  Keep in mind also my shading - the light pink is only a very slight trend in that direction, certainly not enough to flip the state unless it is already very close.

I honestly think the far future - 20-30 years, does look pretty good for the Democrats. 

In an election on economic issues, Pennsylvania would vote Republican? Ummm...no.

I don't see any reason Pennsylvania turns Republican, even with a realignment. There are just two many different forces. It may go from a Democratic leaning swing state to a Republican leaning swing state in a realignment, thats all.

If states voted on economic issues 25 years from now, PA would be solidly for the right wing economic party. The Philly Burbs already make up 25% of the state. By that time, they could make up nearly 50% of the state.  Here's a map of the growing suburbs.

Green is dying cities
Yellow is growing suburbs
Orange is stagnant rural areas

()

Depends on how right wing the GOP gets.  Most of the Philly suburbs are left-center to center economically.  I'd say PA is a total push in years to come.

It's an interesting map...although I think some of those stagnant rural areas are more like dying and some of those dying cities are more like stagnant. :)

Um, why is Missouri and the states bordering it voting for lassiez-faire economic policies?

Why is Nevada and Arizona voting for pro-government economic policies?

()

My suspicions of what the result pattens were be were broadly correct.
I'll write some stuff up on this (and conclusions for U.S trends) later today.

There will still be people voting for Republicans because of social issues, just like there are still people today who vote for Democrats because of the Civil War, though neither are issues at all or will have been for a long time.  And I think that the south will be so conservative that it will stay that way for a while after social issues are less existant.
As far as NV and AZ, I just stuck them with the Democrats because of their current trends to the left.

I would say that that map is pretty accurate.  Though, I would take Centre County out of the "stagnant" rural category, because State College is growing pretty rapidly and there is an expected merger with the surrounding townships soon.

And Pittsburgh is starting to turn around.  They just need to get back on their feet financially.  The city itself is doing pretty well, even if city government is in miserable shape.

Pretty good map I guess. Although Centre county is growing...and Fulton county is starting to get some Washington DC exurbs (Interstate 70 enters PA in Fulton county).

()

Didn't Pittsburgh just announce a budget SURPLUS? Hooray for them!

We did? I must have missed it because of all the negative "City Under Siege" reporting that was going on.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/trib/pittsburgh/s_329091.html

That only says that Murphy has predicted a surplus not that their is one. There is a big difference between saying that you will have a surplus next year and actually having a surplus. This may be political rhetoric and optimism or it may actually be true, problem is we don't know yet.

Yep, Centre is always the one I miss and that's fairly good news on Pittsburgh.

()

Democrat Strongholds & Leans--297EVs (44-50% PV)
Republican Strongholds & Leans--203EVs (42-48% PV)
Green (or some variant) Strongholds & Leans--38EVs (8-12%PV)
Preface:  No, I'm not on crack :P
(01)  If the Democratic party becomes more populist (moderate-liberal social, moderate defense), they'll retake the South (it will also be the stronghold).  This will be at the sacrafice of the Northeast and Upper-Midwest.  Democrats will become the down-to-earth, bread & butter party--always maintaining a balanced budget (and targeted tax cuts to middle class for a persistant budget surplus).  Republicans will remain conservative (except for their rubber-stamp, pork-barrel, spend-and-bankrupt fiscal agenda).  Thus the third party will strip many moderates from both sides.
(02)  Because Democrats will present themselves as the socially moderate party, a socially liberal--perhaps Libertarian or Green--party base will emerge in the North and a few Midwestern states.  The most socially liberal states will indeed award their EVs to said party.  For NY, MA, and VT, expect 50%I/25%R/25%D.  Expect MN, IL, and the remaining Northeastern states to vote Republican (38%R/31%D/31%I).  Arizona will also split almost evenly.
(03)  Demographic voting patterns will also change.  Blacks will be less monolithic (60D/35R/5I), Hispanics serve the populist base  as well (55D/40R/5I), and Whites--even Southerners--will vote more evenly (45D/45R/10I).
(04)  Idaho, Alabama, and Utah MAY (at least try to) secede.  A mass exodus of black people from Alabama to NC, FL, GA, and--to a lesser extent--SC will leave Alabama homogeneous.  More whites from surrounding southern states may take the place of blacks, thus stabilizing the population.
(05)  Most of NC's population will consist of a megalopolis from Charlotte (moderate-to-high growth) to the Triad (decrease or stabilizing population) to the Research Triangle (high growth).  BTW, UNC-Chapel Hill and Duke will rank among the top 5 universities.  SC will see growth exclusively in the Lowcountry (Charleston on down).  GA will taper off once the Atlanta suburbs/exurbs fill up, but there may be a small resurgence around Savannah.  VA will boast one huge megalopolis from Richmond to DC.  MD will continue moderate growth (transplants from NY, MA, PA, and OH).
(06)  Expect third parties to be excluded from state ballots.  Some states may adopt a "Choose two" (pick two and whomever receive the most votes wins) policy for ballots.
(07)  Expect primary caucuses to be phased out.  Bitter fights will ensue for which states will hold the first primaries.
(08)  Expect to see a populist, down-to-earth female and/or minority President!!!
(09)  EVs are apportioned according to the 2030 US Census projection figures featured in USA TODAY.

In fact it only took 11 years.