2016 map....

[jokerman]

If the Democrats cannot persuade the South and Midwest to go for them, then they cannot move the Southwest.  Sure, were doing ok right now swinging moderate libertarians moving in from California and the likes, but the hispanic population is generally populist, and a libertarian strategy that tries to bank on gaining the Southwest will not work.

[minionofmidas]

If the Democrats cannot persuade the South and Midwest to go for them, then they cannot move the Southwest.  Sure, were doing ok right now swining moderate libertarians moving in from California and the likes, but the hispanic population is generally populist, and a libertarian strategy that tries to bank on gaining the Southwest will not work.

Swining?

[opebo]

No, your map is pure fantasy, John Ford.  Give yourself credit!  California a tossup?!  That is a very funny dream.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Correct, and the same is true of California.

Do you even type with  straight face anymore?  Are you seriously suggesting that California, a state whose unemployment is below the national average, is having its job base decimated the way Michigan's is?  And are you seriously suggesting that California, with its large and growing hispanic population, will become a bastion of protectionism?

No, no.  I just meant that you Republicans can say bye-bye to California.  Its gone.

[MODU]

If the Democrats cannot persuade the South and Midwest to go for them, then they cannot move the Southwest.  Sure, were doing ok right now swining moderate libertarians moving in from California and the likes, but the hispanic population is generally populist, and a libertarian strategy that tries to bank on gaining the Southwest will not work.

Swining?

Swinging

[MissCatholic]

The democrats need to become real patriots. Take back the American flag and keep jobs in America. This will push Michigan, Pennslyvania, Wisconsin, Ohio firmly in the demcroatic column, plus moving North Carolina and Virginia into the 47-48% territories. If the dems could find a way of putting DC into Virginia then that would be a grat move for the party.

One last thing..Hawaii - its going republican fast and they isnt alot that the dems can do about.

[MODU]

If the dems could find a way of putting DC into Virginia then that would be a grat move for the party.

If DC were to be annexed by a state, it would have to go back to Maryland, since that is where it came from.  VA already retains it's portion of "DC," which is called Arlington.

[AuH2O]

I rather enjoy Democratic "predictions," which always involve numerous states becoming more Democratic, apparently by magic, while no states become more Republican. How exactly that happens is unclear; in relative terms, it's not even possible.

But who am I to complain? I need people like that to make money on tradesports... if everyone was rational I'd have to think a lot harder about it.

And I'm sure someone who now has your money because you moronically honestly thinking Bush could winning Washington and betting on that is thinking the same thing about you now.

I bet $2000 on the 2004 elections and made $1500 profit. That's a 75% return. How much did you make?

Also, my actual point stands-- Democrats, well at least many of those on this site-- make "predictions" about the future that are literally impossible. At the time I bet on Bush to win Washington and Vermont (I bet $20 and $5, respectively), his odds of winning those were not bad, perhaps 20% and 5%, respectively. Since I was looking at 10:1 and 50:1 payouts, it was the correct move.

Obviously, I don't expect someone with no understanding of statistics, research methods (i.e. political statistics), and odds-making to comprehend why I was correct.

[jacob_101]

Here's mine....Democrats make some inroads into the SW and FL and Republicans barely win IA, WI, OH.

[TheresNoMoney]

Conservativism peaked in the 2000-2004 period. I don't see Republicans making any big gains anywhere over the next 10 years.

[AuH2O]

Conservativism peaked in the 2000-2004 period. I don't see Republicans making any big gains anywhere over the next 10 years.

"Conservatism" and "liberalism" are essentially meaningless words thrown about for political reasons. They are irrelevant.

The Republican Party, which is the conglomeration of elites that claim to be "conservative," is stronger now than any time since the 1920s. The reason for this is that Democrats achieved all their objectives decades ago and now have nothing to do except whine about technicalities, which has hurt them at the ballot box.

Thus, so long as the Republicans continue their technocratic, pro-bureaucracy, pro-spending ways, Democrats have very little ground on which to gain traction. Republicans, being in power, have all major structural advantages.

They also have better leadership, which, along with the aforementioned instrumental variables, compose the two primary factors in electoral success. The GOP has acted in a surprisingly intelligent manner recently... if they continue, Democrats will be stalled in 2006 and again defeated in 2008.

Parties do not win by magic. There are reasons, and those reasons have little to do with the childish assertions many lay-pundits make. The "Emerging Democratic Majority" and other silly propositions designed to make money or produce power for their authors (i.e. DailyKos) are not intelligent observers of the process.

The GOP has a structural advantage indefinitely. The only way Democrats win, then, is by leadership. Based on the current talent available, that means they cannot regain power in DC for at least several cycles... it might take 15 years for a superior crop to hold the top jobs. Or, as was the case with the GOP after 1932, it could take 60 years.

[opebo]

Democrats achieved all their objectives decades ago and now have nothing to do except whine about technicalities, which has hurt them at the ballot box.

What you are neglecting to take into account is that those supposedly achieved objectives are being rapidly underminded by the GOP as inequality increases rapidly, and person freedoms are reduced at a rapid pace.

I have no idea if this will bother the electorate, but certainly the future includes an almost total unravelling of the great achievements of liberalism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They are spending on the upper class.  They can be big spenders and still destroy redistribution.

[memphis]

I don't think that map is too far off. The south can't stay a Consv hold forever. NC/GA are getting more and more big cities and people in cities are liberal. Like in 2004 Kerry won the top 3 populationed cities.

A high population is not a guarantee for the Democrats, especially in the SunBelt. Bush won 4 of the 6 most populous counties in the US (Harris, TX; Maricopa, AZ; Orange, CA; San Diego, CA). Other large Bush SunBelt counties include Dallas, TX; San Bernadino, CA; Riverside, CA; Tarrant, TX; Bexar, TX; Hillsborough, FL; Pinellas FL.

[H. Ross Peron]

The democrats need to become real patriots. Take back the American flag and keep jobs in America. This will push Michigan, Pennslyvania, Wisconsin, Ohio firmly in the demcroatic column, plus moving North Carolina and Virginia into the 47-48% territories. If the dems could find a way of putting DC into Virginia then that would be a grat move for the party.

One last thing..Hawaii - its going republican fast and they isnt alot that the dems can do about.

If only you had been advising the Hillary Clinton campaign.

[Vespucci]

Someone give the Prediction of the Century awards to the people who thought California and Hawaii would become swing states.

[pbrower2a]

Reasonable assumptions in 2005:

1. We would have another Presidential swing D in 2008 with Florida, Iowa, New Mexico, and Ohio going D with some fringe chance of Colorado and Virginia going D

2. Much the same if the Democratic nominee was fairly good, maybe picking off Arizona while losing Florida or Ohio

3. the Republican nominee barely winning in 2016 by going back to something like the 2004 'map'  if the Democratic nominee is fairly good, but an R landslide in the event of some military or economic calamity that one cannot predict this far ahead.

4. The black guy from Illinois? The DEA wants to bust your 'source'! 

[Devout Centrist]

I don't think that map is too far off. The south can't stay a Consv hold forever. NC/GA are getting more and more big cities and people in cities are liberal. Like in 2004 Kerry won the top 3 populationed cities.

A high population is not a guarantee for the Democrats, especially in the SunBelt. Bush won 4 of the 6 most populous counties in the US (Harris, TX; Maricopa, AZ; Orange, CA; San Diego, CA). Other large Bush SunBelt counties include Dallas, TX; San Bernadino, CA; Riverside, CA; Tarrant, TX; Bexar, TX; Hillsborough, FL; Pinellas FL.

All of these counties voted for Biden. Pretty remarkable.

[Alcibiades]

Many southwestern states (NV, CO, NM and possibly AZ) will go Democratic by 2016, as well as states like Virginia and possibly North Carolina.

And men will walk on Pluto.

I guess they have...

Seriously, the top prediction is pretty damn good, with a highly unusual amount of foresight for threads from that era.