What might cause a major disturbance in the present electoral paradigm?

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

Presently the electoral map seems to approaching stability, with a set of predictable swing states. Their are of course shifts(Colorado and Virginia being obvious examples), but those are predictable consequence of immigration patterns. Of course the Dems may be faced with continued attrition amongst the white working class, and Repubs amongst new voters, but these are merely the (relatively slow) continuation of long term trends.

This is coupled with the increased polarization of the electorate meaning that the swings are becoming more and more moderate.

What might upend this? Or are we facing a few decades of a comparatively stable paradigm?

[The Ex-Factor]

Just off the top of my head, maybe if global temperatures continue to rise and water becomes increasingly more scarce/natural disasters more commonplace, there could be a North vs. South paradigm?

[後援会]

More realistically, we never get entitlement spending under control and our political parties need to start debating whether we want government to be 70% of GDP or 65% of GDP. The new demographic/fiscal reality we'll be facing will be presenting America with a type of government it has no experience with.

[Hatman 🍁]

More realistically

I don't think you can get more realistic than what XPostFactor99 described. Except, it may not be a north vs. south battle.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Ah, I see that our resident pseudointellectual is out of his box again. 'Electoral paradigm' my foot. Death to stupid jargon.

Americans don't do electoral stability because they are a flighty and irresponsible people. The eventual 2012 map - whatever it is - would doubtless look absurd to people in 2004, much as the 2008 map would have looked absurd to people in 2000... etc, etc, etc.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

Ah, I see that our resident pseudointellectual is out of his box again. 'Electoral paradigm' my foot. Death to stupid jargon.

A forum full of political hacks, an I'm considered the pseudointellectual one? Oooh that stings .

And I  disagree when you say that the 2008 map would have looked absurd to the people of 2000. If you add 4.5% onto Gore's state results then you end up with more or less the same map as 2008, except for the upland South(which anyone could have seen coming with an "elitist" black candidate and the Democratic advocacy of curtailing carbon emmissions) , North Carolina(largely a result of Northern immigration and higher black turnout, so the factional dynamic* remains), Arizona(probably would have been gone Dem or very nearly so without McCain's homestate advantage), and Indiana(which is the only "WTF" state result, in my opinion).

*I know I know. But I honestly couldn't think of a non-pretentious equivalent term.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

Americans don't do electoral stability because they are a flighty and irresponsible people.

Not true anymore. 2000 and 2004 were both nailbiters, 2012 is looking like it will be as well. 2008 gets called a landslide, but Obama's lead in the electoral vote was smaller then the winners lead in every election from 1980 to 1996(although slightly larger then Clinton popular vote margin in 1992). 2008 would have been seen as a moderate margin of victory at best(if not outright close) in any period of American history other then the past 12 years.

(WARNING! WARNING! PSEUDOINTELLECTUALISM AHEAD!)

So yes, the present electoral dynamics do constitute a relatively stable electoral paradigm.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Nothing, until Republicans educate the public about who they really are and begin to make inroads in Democratic-leaning and swing areas.  The present system (I call it the Clinton Party System after the Clinton realignment in 1992) is relatively stable for the time being.

Americans don't do electoral stability because they are a flighty and irresponsible people.

Not true anymore. 2000 and 2004 were both nailbiters, 2012 is looking like it will be as well. 2008 gets called a landslide, but Obama's lead in the electoral vote was smaller then the winners lead in every election from 1980 to 1996(although slightly larger then Clinton popular vote margin in 1992). 2008 would have been seen as a moderate margin of victory at best(if not outright close) in any period of American history other then the past 12 years.

(WARNING! WARNING! PSEUDOINTELLECTUALISM AHEAD!)

So yes, the present electoral dynamics do constitute a relatively stable electoral paradigm.

Agreed.  I wouldn't consider Obama's victory or either of Clinton's to be landslides (to me, a landslide is when the loser gets less than 100 electoral votes, or, in a state/local election, over 60% of the vote.) 

Ah, I see that our resident pseudointellectual is out of his box again. 'Electoral paradigm' my foot. Death to stupid jargon.

A forum full of political hacks, an I'm considered the pseudointellectual one? Oooh that stings .

And I  disagree when you say that the 2008 map would have looked absurd to the people of 2000. If you add 4.5% onto Gore's state results then you end up with more or less the same map as 2008, except for the upland South(which anyone could have seen coming with an "elitist" black candidate and the Democratic advocacy of curtailing carbon emmissions) , North Carolina(largely a result of Northern immigration and higher black turnout, so the factional dynamic* remains), Arizona(probably would have been gone Dem or very nearly so without McCain's homestate advantage), and Indiana(which is the only "WTF" state result, in my opinion).

*I know I know. But I honestly couldn't think of a non-pretentious equivalent term.

But much of rural Southern Virginia voted for Doug Wilder for governor in 1989, so I doubt that race is as much of a factor as you suggest.