Talk Elections

()

By 2044, the Democrats have made strong gains in the South while the GOP has maintained a stronger grip on the midwest, due to changing demographics and population changes. However, a few deep southern states have lost considerable population, and thus electoral votes, however Louisiana has started to favor Democrats due to their frequent climate-change related disasters. The Northeast, while still heavily Democratic, has lost some population over the last several decades, however the economic and population boom in Massachusetts has caused the state to regain a seat in Congress that it had lost in 2010. Rhode Island and Connecticut, previously Democratic strongholds, have lost significant population, especially among millenials and Generation Z-ers, and have since become competitive and tend to favor the GOP. Virginia and Maryland have each gained clout due to the growth of the federal government and the jobs that come with it, as well as the area's moderate climate and significant business growth. California has lost four electoral votes in 30 years, due to large numbers of people leaving the state due to its extremely high cost of living and natural disasters including wildfires and earthquakes. In fact, one of these electoral votes was essentially lost due to fatalities from the Great Earthquake in 2034.

Is Chicago leaving Illinois?

Logically, if Texas and Georgia are Democratic states, the entire rust belt must be solid R because otherwise the map would always strongly favor Democrats depending on the swing states.

I think we are likely headed for a dominant-party system where Democrats have an inbuilt advantage in presidential elections.
Hence, IL and MN are still Dem, and the rust belt is simply swingy like it has long been.
The GOP got its spell as a party with an inbuilt advantage - look at the period between 1968 and 1988.
Why wouldn't the Democrats get a similar opportunity? What goes around comes around.

Well, if Texas, Florida, and Georgia are Solid D by 2044, I don't see how Republicans can really even compete on the Presidential level. It would take a realignment for a Republican to win if it comes to that.

Agreed. Republicans don't seem to have a great path to 270 once the sun belt becomes a little more Democratic.

America isn't built for constant 1-party domination. I guess it's entirely possible (probably even likely) the Dems will win the majority of elections in the coming few decades, but I don't think it will become a borderline one-party state. In that case the Democrats would eventually become either too arrogant or too radical, and the GOP would adapt (though that might take some time with the recent radicalization of the GOP).

I think EASILY the most likely scenario is for Democrats to get a very, very significant governing and EC advantage by the 2040s that causes Republicans to move into a 1940s to 1960s position again of being the "measured, conservative, sensible" opposition to "radical liberal ideas."  This will, of course, allow some inroads into groups they're currently offending.  From there, it's anyone's guess how the GOP gets back to 1980s, 1990s and 2000s level strength again, but they will somehow.  These two parties have made it through an AWFUL lot.

I feel like this is a troll post but for one thing wouldn't it make more sense to use 30-year projections

This is america before the 2nd civil war isn’t it?

FDR 2.0, aka as President Jon Tester, wins reelection in a 49-state landslide as the Democrats finally stick to their roots and shun their neoliberal Fairfax/Fairfield County-type base (which still votes for them becuz of demographics, unfortunately). NH, which remains a staggeringly elastic, libertarian, Independent-minded, contrarian, Republican state at heart (its loyalty to the GOP being rivaled only by Alf Landon’s Vermont), is the lone holdout, voting for Charlie Baker Jr. in his unsuccessful bid for the presidency. The most Democratic state is... right, it doesn’t really merit mention: Montana, naturally, where an ironclad coalition composed of pot-smoking, fat, VIOLENT farmers and other #populist, #libertarian WWC rural folk, latte liberals and affluent voters in the Bozeman area, Native Americans, blue state migrants from the West Coast, and of course educatidz in Missoula has turned the state into a socialist haven and ProgressiveCanadian’s favorite vacation spot.

... Am I doing this right? Seriously though, there is really no way to know what the map will look like in 26 (!) years, especially when you bear in mind how much has changed since 1992. A shot in the dark...

()

It will really come down to whether the GOP can hold/win Texas, Florida and North Carolina or not.

New Hampshire has almost always voted to the right of Maine, so the idea that Maine is going to become Likely R while New Hampshire is solid D is pretty hilarious. Equally ridiculous is the idea that Illinois is going to become a toss-up and Utah will only be Tilt-R. Also, by the time Georgia is Safe D, North Carolina almost certainly will be even Safer D.

“Virginia has almost always voted to the right of West Virginia, so the idea that West Virginia is going to become Likely R while Virginia is Solid D is pretty hilarious.” - TexArkana in 1996? (No, I’m not comparing ME to WV, but this argument is stupid.) Democrats still have a lot of room for growth in NH, too.


Obviously the GOP would need to adapt for IL to become a Tossup, but they pretty much have to do that anyway under any scenario in which they want to remain relevant. Also, this is 2044, A LOT can happen, and it’s foolish to assume that the Electoral Map will be the same for all eternity. All that said, Illinois should still be a difficult state for the GOP to win. 


We’ll just have to agree to disagree here. Obviously you could make a case for NC being Lean or Likely D as well, but I do believe GA is going the way of CO/VA in the long run, regardless of what “strategy” Democrats pursue.

Why is Tennessee only lean Republican?

With regards to New Hampshire and Maine, these two states are not going to dramatically change in the near future, in my opinion. The demographics of the two states aren't significantly changing, and I don't see a huge influx of liberals or immigrants or what have you. In the end though, it's entirely impossible to predict with any accuracy what an election held 26 years from now is going to look like. Compare the 1992 map to the 2016 map and there are huge, glaring differences that can't really be explained by linear trends or swings. Look at the large number of counties that voted Clinton >70% in 1992 or 1996 and voted Trump >70% in 2016, or the counties that Bush won easily that flipped to Hillary in 2016 (Gwinnett County being a prime example).

And W. Bush won Fairfax County as well as recently as 2000.

LMAO at people leaving California due to "natural disasters"

The Southeast is constantly hit by hurricanes. The midwest gets hundreds of tornadoes each year.

California has about one major earthquake per century.

If you go by that logic, Florida would lose WAY more people than CA.

one person said that...and they said people would leave primarily due to cost of living. plus it's kind of true florida has a high volume of in-migration that california does not

We all know as of now that Illinois is quite competitive on the state level.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=17&year=2016&f=1&off=10

Problem for the GOP there is that over the tenure of a Republicans time in office is that it is hard to meet the contradictory demands of both the collars and downstate. Also DuPage and Lake County seem to be moving to the Democratic party very quickly.

It is a tough nut to crack for the GOP even if they can be competitive there.

But like you said a lot can change over time. In 1992 Bush 1 carried Dupage County easily and Will was the only Collar County to vote Clinton while Southern Illinois was heavily for Clinton.

In 2016 Clinton carried all the Collar Counties except McHenry and the GOP could not even carry DuPage in the Senatorial contest. Hillary was annihilated in Southern Illinois.

Anyway here is my wild guess for 2044

()

This map could just as easily happen in 2020.

Ridiculous.

()

Nope Illinois and New Hampshire will generally by titanium Democratic by 2044. Democrats regularly earning > 60 % of the vote in both states.

Why do Utah and West Virginia become much more competitive? Why is Alabama rock solid R when Mississippi and Louisiana are toss-ups? Shouldn't Virginia be a darker shade of red? And how does Vermont vote to the right of New Hampshire?

()

If you ever have the time, I'd love to see a county map for this.

They'll have their wilderness years, but I'm sure some candidate will be able to figure out a new direction for the party, a la Clinton in '92

()

This is my prediction of the 2044 electoral map.
()

Basically the slow trend of Racial polarization continues to a point where Republicans are winning 80% of the White vote, while Democrats are winning 90% of the Nonwhite vote. This results in very closely divided elections (in both the electoral and popular vote) who's outcome are solely based on Republicans turning out as many Whites as possible (primarily by using Racist appeals against Nonwhites), and Democrats turning out as many Nonwhites as possible (primarily by using Racist appeals against Whites). Economic issues are still discussed in campaigns, but only in an extremely racialized way, while Cultural issues dominate the discussion. This results in a very unstable and borderline Third-world country (America's economic and military power has diminished significantly due to a major economic crash caused by a massive equity bubble and over leveraged Corporate debt in the 2020s, combined with a embarrassing military defeat by Russia and China in the 2030s), in which elections are followed by large-scale civil unrest by whichever side loses them.

Even in 2044, if Republicans are winning 80% of the white vote I see no way they could possibly lose an election. Of course, this is ridiculous as no Republican since Nixon has won more than 66% of the white vote.

LMAO

am i like the only person on this forum who thinks race will depolarize...

No, if you look at the intense polarization that we're seeing today, I don't think it can last forever. eventually there will be a realignment or some event that causes the electorate to shift and depolarize.

I think pretty much everything will depolarize by the 2040s, bringing us into a "more complicated" political landscape like the 20th Century again, personally.

I have some issues with this, but this is roughly based on a scenario where race becomes irrelevant to voting patterns and religion becomes everything.  While the colors are based on safe/likely/lean, it's possible that Mississippi would literally be R>90 in this scenario.  I left Utah and Idaho blank because they are below the national average of religiosity, but the religious influence is clearly very strong in the religious group.
()

()
Dems become more religious and further left on economics and social issues, republicans become irreligous and focus on an "anti-bureaucracy" platform, libertarians want less government regulation on businesses, laxer gun laws, while  the trumpists want less rules and regulations for police officers, less regulations on racial profiling etc.

For once i think King Lear is being serious, I mean we are swindled with corporate debt.

when ppl realize how awesome being a neoconservative is.

()

King Lear, Economics PhD.

(Corporate debt isn’t a major problem, and I don’t think any forum sh**tposter is a good source for forecasting)

I tend to think automation is going to drive politics and reallign certain voting blocs as a result over the next twenty years.

???

While the first is kind of dubious, the second is very likely to happen.  Or were you referring to "becoming more religious" and moving "further left on social issues" at the same time?

The latter, becoming more religious and socially liberal, which, if religious refers to evangelical (which it most likely is), is basically an oxymoron.

GOP attracting irreligious voters and Dems attracting Mormons is plausible at the very least. The only issue I have with this map is LA and MS being Solid Dem, but I'll give BernieBro the benefit of the doubt. I don't see the contradiction between "religious" and "socially liberal" because I think the wedge social issues among my generation will be different from those of the recent past.

()

My take on electoral college reapportionment + BernieBro's scenario in a 50/50 election, which doesn't seem too far off from AN63093's prediction (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=268830.msg5769450#msg5769450) or King Lear's.

Mr. Timmy..

Illinois will be titanium D even in 2044!

Which Timmy?

1990: Virginia will be solid Republican, even in 2016.

From where do the GOP votes come from in Illinois, enough to overwhelm Chicago?

There are absolutely no indications or clues that Illinois will become a GOP state. If anything it will become more democratic.

Obviously older evangelicals will never vote D but younger ones might at SOME point. Democrats focusing on a message of "peace" and "morality", especially on economic issues. Social issues will fit in fine, except abortion. That's going to be tough to deal with.

It'll never be a Solid Republican state, but I doubt it gets more Democratic. Chicago isn't thriving the way major cities of the Sun Belt are and it's only a matter of time before Madigan's Machine unravels (he is in his 70s after all). IMHO, by 2024 it's lean Democratic for the Presidency, lean Republican at the state level, kind of like how Wisconsin was.

I don't think ILL would ever be safe Republican, not sure who is saying that. I have always been of am ind that it could become like Florida, which is what was like for much of the mid 20th century as well.


It is not just "muh midwest", my theory is that if Republicans are isolated to the midwest, they have to balance trumpists with suburbs to have enough of a base their to be relevant. 

I imagine you will see in 2028 some kind of mild mannered Midwest Governor running on Entrepreneurship, Education, Fair Trade and Merit based immigration, with all the hard edges removed. I also suspect moderation on issues like LGBT, climate and FP as necessitated by the generational shift in the party.

I can see that getting to 45% or 46% in Illinois unless the Democratic candidate is from the midwest. Depending on third party siphoning, that would lead to some very close races.

Yes, VA voted 59%-39% for Bush in 1988. ILL voted 56%-39% for Clinton in 2016.


The missing element was generational change and diversification flipping NOVA. That couldn't be seen in 1990 when Millennials were at most 8 years old.

The massive G.H.W. Bush margins in the sunbelt states relative to the national PV were really a one time thing, though. 

Quite, but the point is that VA was regarded as a Republican state, having voted Republican in every election since 1952, with the exception of 1964. It also then voted for Bush again and then for Bob Dole.

1) Polarization will be a lot lower

2) My guess is as polarization decreases, the South (the most polarized area of the country by far and wide) goes back to its old Dem roots (this most likely doesn't happen until polarization goes down) while the de-secularized GOP starts doing well in the North. But by this point the seeds that cause the new Dem coalition to fall apart is unknown. My guess is suburbs turn GOP (resulting in a similar realignment again to the Reagan one) but I'm basically throwing darts on a board at this point.

Let's imagine that Republicans keep their gains with the WWC and manage to retain appeal in suburbs at the same time. Democrats remain popular in urban areas and with minorities. Thus:

• Rust belt, including MN, becomes solidly R around 2024/2028 and stays that way for the next few elections. A booming Chicago under Mayor West keeps this trend from extending to Illinois.
• Rs also make inroads into the northeast: NY and NJ start going R thanks to stellar recovery efforts in the NYC metro by Pres. Haley after Hurricane Melchizedek in 2031 as well as aforementioned appeal in suburbs/upstate.
• Vermont has become more R ever since the death of Pres. Sanders from a stroke in 2022 and a subsequent feeling of abandonment starting with his successor, Pres. Harris, and New Hampshire and rural Maine pick up some of the R swing as well.
• Black populations in the southeast give states from VA to LA a huge Dem boost.
• Similarly, Hispanics in the sun belt continue to support Dems as well especially with the enshrining of an expanded DACA into law under Pres. Harris.
• In the PNW, aging hipsters and ex-pats from Generalissimo Elizabeth May's briefly independent Vancouver Island Commune start to swing the region to the Republicans as the party loosens its social conservative grip and residents realize that carbon taxes affect craft beer breweries.
• Florida is still as swingy as ever.

A map would look something like:
()
With current EV totals the Republican would narrowly win but I'd imagine redistricting would favour the south, so I'd call a Democratic victory in '44.

This looks very similar to a Pre 1932 Map with exception of upper South and Florida

Somewhat ironic since carbon taxes have been proposed as a more market-friendly policy solution that would appeal to economically/fiscally conservative Republicans.

To be totz the honest with you, I do not imagine even a ten percent chance that California will be the most populated state by 2044. I think Texas will finally take over at the rate it is going. As for the electoral votes itself, congress better change the constitution to get rid of the god awful 538 idea and start going by the Wyoming rule

I'll take a bit of a risk here:

()

Party polarization on social issues declines, but polarization by industry between manufacturers (GOP) and raw material producers/exporters (Dem) increases.  Deindustrialization spreads through New England and then to the NYC metro area, driving them toward a less religious and more populist GOP.  Tariffs cause a split in both the environmentalist and energy industry vote.  The GOP positions itself as the party for retirees and moderates enough on climate change to lock down Florida.  Meanwhile, big Dem gains in the Deep South and Plains states lead to a growing religious left bloc that is starting to make NorCal and the Pacific NW states uncomfortable.  Dems finally take the Mormon vote after a long period of flirtation with 3rd parties in Utah and Idaho.

Thoughts?