Where do you think we will be?

[12th Doctor]

Looking at recent and long term treands in politics, where do you think this country will be politically by 2020.  Will the North-east continue to shrink in population and become more Democratic, or will the loss of population trigger an anti-democrat movement?  Will the ouster of Castro negate the issue and make Cubans vote Dem and those make FL solidly Dem? Will the decline in immigration eventually lead to TX over-taking CA in electoral votes (i.e. CA-45, TX-46)?  Will the "Free states movement" succeed in NH?  Could some southern states (i.e. NC and VA) become new liberal strong-holds?  What are your ideas?  Feel free to start small.

[© tweed]

This country is trending conservatively.  New york's EV's will sink down into the low 20's, and PA's into the teens.  Florida and Texas will be the ost heavily populated states.  Arizona will grow into a heavily populated state.  And so on...

[12th Doctor]

This country is trending conservatively.  New york's EV's will sink down into the low 20's, and PA's into the teens.  Florida and Texas will be the ost heavily populated states.  Arizona will grow into a heavily populated state.  And so on...

I think that after the 2010 census, PA could be down to as few as 18 EV's.  I think that New York could stabalize at around 29-31 and stay there for the next few decades.  I think that Georgia and North Carolina counld grow beyond 20 EV;s in the next 20 years.  But this isn't just about EV's this is about what you think the political charecter of different regions of the country will be too.

[Gustaf]

OK, I don't think New York will decline as sharply as a lot of other northeastern states, I think the industrial states will suffer the most. I agree that it's along the SOuthern border that a boost in population will occur, AZ, NV, FL, TX, CA, etc.

Politically, it's very hard to determine, b/c the parties will in the long run adapt to the people, so I don't think that demographical changes necessarily has to translate into power changes. But Hispanics will be increasingly important, and you have a good point on Castro, Supersoulty.

I will come back when I've had some more time to think...

[12th Doctor]

I could see an anti-Democrat upheaval in the North-east do to economic losses and the loss of population.  Especially in states like PA (if there isn't an upheaval after the Rendell administration we are in trouble).  New Jersey is another state that could move further right.  Possibly Masschusetts, after Kennedy is dead.  I see the Republicans playing heavily to the hispanics, while the Dems are locked in place by their "loyalty" to black voters.  That could mean big gains for the Republicans especially as more hispanics move up in social and economic status (think Miguel Estrada).

[Gustaf]

I could see an anti-Democrat upheaval in the North-east do to economic losses and the loss of population.  Especially in states like PA (if there isn't an upheaval after the Rendell administration we are in trouble).  New Jersey is another state that could move further right.  Possibly Masschusetts, after Kennedy is dead.  I see the Republicans playing heavily to the hispanics, while the Dems are locked in place by their "loyalty" to black voters.  That could mean big gains for the Republicans especially as more hispanics move up in social and economic status (think Miguel Estrada).

Massachusetts could definitely move further right, but I doubt whether they will actually ever get as far as, say, the moderate wing of teh Democratic party?

If these things happens, the Democrats will eventually move to the right and force the GOP out among the far-right.

[12th Doctor]

I could see an anti-Democrat upheaval in the North-east do to economic losses and the loss of population.  Especially in states like PA (if there isn't an upheaval after the Rendell administration we are in trouble).  New Jersey is another state that could move further right.  Possibly Masschusetts, after Kennedy is dead.  I see the Republicans playing heavily to the hispanics, while the Dems are locked in place by their "loyalty" to black voters.  That could mean big gains for the Republicans especially as more hispanics move up in social and economic status (think Miguel Estrada).

Massachusetts could definitely move further right, but I doubt whether they will actually ever get as far as, say, the moderate wing of teh Democratic party?

If these things happens, the Democrats will eventually move to the right and force the GOP out among the far-right.

I doubt that.  If I had to guess from a totally objective oppinon, I would have to say that we are probably looking at an era of Republican dominance at least til 2020, until the Dems reinvent themselves.

[Gustaf]

I could see an anti-Democrat upheaval in the North-east do to economic losses and the loss of population.  Especially in states like PA (if there isn't an upheaval after the Rendell administration we are in trouble).  New Jersey is another state that could move further right.  Possibly Masschusetts, after Kennedy is dead.  I see the Republicans playing heavily to the hispanics, while the Dems are locked in place by their "loyalty" to black voters.  That could mean big gains for the Republicans especially as more hispanics move up in social and economic status (think Miguel Estrada).

Massachusetts could definitely move further right, but I doubt whether they will actually ever get as far as, say, the moderate wing of teh Democratic party?

If these things happens, the Democrats will eventually move to the right and force the GOP out among the far-right.

I doubt that.  If I had to guess from a totally objective oppinon, I would have to say that we are probably looking at an era of Republican dominance at least til 2020, until the Dems reinvent themselves.

Only if the Dems mess up badly, like the British Labour party did in the 80s. They were locked out for 18 years b/c they didn't adapt quickly enough. But sooner or later the Dems will get around, it always happens in two-party-systems.

[12th Doctor]

I could see an anti-Democrat upheaval in the North-east do to economic losses and the loss of population.  Especially in states like PA (if there isn't an upheaval after the Rendell administration we are in trouble).  New Jersey is another state that could move further right.  Possibly Masschusetts, after Kennedy is dead.  I see the Republicans playing heavily to the hispanics, while the Dems are locked in place by their "loyalty" to black voters.  That could mean big gains for the Republicans especially as more hispanics move up in social and economic status (think Miguel Estrada).

Massachusetts could definitely move further right, but I doubt whether they will actually ever get as far as, say, the moderate wing of teh Democratic party?

If these things happens, the Democrats will eventually move to the right and force the GOP out among the far-right.

I doubt that.  If I had to guess from a totally objective oppinon, I would have to say that we are probably looking at an era of Republican dominance at least til 2020, until the Dems reinvent themselves.

Only if the Dems mess up badly, like the British Labour party did in the 80s. They were locked out for 18 years b/c they didn't adapt quickly enough. But sooner or later the Dems will get around, it always happens in two-party-systems.

I took the Republicans 60 years to take back the congress for the long term after they "messed-up badly".  The fact is that people are acctually getting used to the idea of a Republican congress.  As my one profesor Dr. Kozak put it "the party of money has become the party of the people".

[Gustaf]

I could see an anti-Democrat upheaval in the North-east do to economic losses and the loss of population.  Especially in states like PA (if there isn't an upheaval after the Rendell administration we are in trouble).  New Jersey is another state that could move further right.  Possibly Masschusetts, after Kennedy is dead.  I see the Republicans playing heavily to the hispanics, while the Dems are locked in place by their "loyalty" to black voters.  That could mean big gains for the Republicans especially as more hispanics move up in social and economic status (think Miguel Estrada).

Massachusetts could definitely move further right, but I doubt whether they will actually ever get as far as, say, the moderate wing of teh Democratic party?

If these things happens, the Democrats will eventually move to the right and force the GOP out among the far-right.

I doubt that.  If I had to guess from a totally objective oppinon, I would have to say that we are probably looking at an era of Republican dominance at least til 2020, until the Dems reinvent themselves.

Only if the Dems mess up badly, like the British Labour party did in the 80s. They were locked out for 18 years b/c they didn't adapt quickly enough. But sooner or later the Dems will get around, it always happens in two-party-systems.

I took the Republicans 60 years to take back the congress for the long term after they "messed-up badly".  The fact is that people are acctually getting used to the idea of a Republican congress.  As my one profesor Dr. Kozak put it "the party of money has become the party of the people".

Well, maybe you're right then.

[12th Doctor]

I could see an anti-Democrat upheaval in the North-east do to economic losses and the loss of population.  Especially in states like PA (if there isn't an upheaval after the Rendell administration we are in trouble).  New Jersey is another state that could move further right.  Possibly Masschusetts, after Kennedy is dead.  I see the Republicans playing heavily to the hispanics, while the Dems are locked in place by their "loyalty" to black voters.  That could mean big gains for the Republicans especially as more hispanics move up in social and economic status (think Miguel Estrada).

Massachusetts could definitely move further right, but I doubt whether they will actually ever get as far as, say, the moderate wing of teh Democratic party?

If these things happens, the Democrats will eventually move to the right and force the GOP out among the far-right.

I doubt that.  If I had to guess from a totally objective oppinon, I would have to say that we are probably looking at an era of Republican dominance at least til 2020, until the Dems reinvent themselves.

Only if the Dems mess up badly, like the British Labour party did in the 80s. They were locked out for 18 years b/c they didn't adapt quickly enough. But sooner or later the Dems will get around, it always happens in two-party-systems.

I took the Republicans 60 years to take back the congress for the long term after they "messed-up badly".  The fact is that people are acctually getting used to the idea of a Republican congress.  As my one profesor Dr. Kozak put it "the party of money has become the party of the people".

Well, maybe you're right then.

I don't mean to imply that there won't be bright spots for the Democrats.  They may take the majority of the state-houses for a few years or take back the Senate for two years or even elect a president to a term, but I think that on the whole, the country will be dominated by Republicans until at least 2020.  I see Republican control of the House lasting that long, probably unbroken.  I think that even if Bush loses this year, we will just oust Kerry in '08 anyway (say hello to President McCain or President Jeb Bush or even George W. again).

[Gustaf]

I could see an anti-Democrat upheaval in the North-east do to economic losses and the loss of population.  Especially in states like PA (if there isn't an upheaval after the Rendell administration we are in trouble).  New Jersey is another state that could move further right.  Possibly Masschusetts, after Kennedy is dead.  I see the Republicans playing heavily to the hispanics, while the Dems are locked in place by their "loyalty" to black voters.  That could mean big gains for the Republicans especially as more hispanics move up in social and economic status (think Miguel Estrada).

Massachusetts could definitely move further right, but I doubt whether they will actually ever get as far as, say, the moderate wing of teh Democratic party?

If these things happens, the Democrats will eventually move to the right and force the GOP out among the far-right.

I doubt that.  If I had to guess from a totally objective oppinon, I would have to say that we are probably looking at an era of Republican dominance at least til 2020, until the Dems reinvent themselves.

Only if the Dems mess up badly, like the British Labour party did in the 80s. They were locked out for 18 years b/c they didn't adapt quickly enough. But sooner or later the Dems will get around, it always happens in two-party-systems.

I took the Republicans 60 years to take back the congress for the long term after they "messed-up badly".  The fact is that people are acctually getting used to the idea of a Republican congress.  As my one profesor Dr. Kozak put it "the party of money has become the party of the people".

Well, maybe you're right then.

I don't mean to imply that there won't be bright spots for the Democrats.  They may take the majority of the state-houses for a few years or take back the Senate for two years or even elect a president to a term, but I think that on the whole, the country will be dominated by Republicans until at least 2020.  I see Republican control of the House lasting that long, probably unbroken.  I think that even if Bush loses this year, we will just oust Kerry in '08 anyway (say hello to President McCain or President Jeb Bush or even George W. again).

Well, the cool thing about the future is that we can seldom predict it accurately. You might well be right, it's plausible, but then again there are a lot of other things that could happen as well.

[Platypus]

OK, in 2020; jobs are rarer (pro-dem), the emvironment is screwed (pro dem), and we are in a peaceful era (pro gop). The GOP have been in power in the house continuously, and lost the senate between 2014-16. In 2012, President Rice lost her re-election battle to Governor Richardson. Richardson was very popular, and the people welcomed the change, but in 2015 Honolulu was bombed by the Chinese. Richardson's appeasement policy on the chinese, which had been popular, turned into his achilles heel, and in 2016 he lost the election in a massive landslide to then-Senator Jim Nussle (he is my current congressman ). Nussle has remained popular, after immediately signing peace with the Chinese. His term has seen the admission of Puerto Rico as the 52nd state (DC became the state of Columbia in 2014).

Dems win VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, MD, CL (Columbia), IL, FL, PR, CA, OR and WA (in the new EV system, thats a total of 212/490)

I took a bit of artistic lisence

[opebo]

Interesting thread.  I think that 2020 is not all that far away electorally speaking.  I suspect that the Republican party will still be strong in the House, probably having maintained a majority through '20.  The Senate should stay mostly in GOP hands but I wouldn't by any means rule out the Dems taking it at times.  But I do think the Dems have a pretty good chance at the presidency over the next 16 years.  I don't see either party breaking through to total dominance.  It will still be a nation leaning about 51% GOP to 49% Democrat.

Here's a useful tool for this thread -
http://www.census.gov/population/projections/state/stpjpop.txt - population projections for the states through 2025.  I prefer Series B as I think it is more reflective of true economic situations.  Series A overstates some now-old trends, like CA growth.

[12th Doctor]

Interesting thread.  I think that 2020 is not all that far away electorally speaking.  I suspect that the Republican party will still be strong in the House, probably having maintained a majority through '20.  The Senate should stay mostly in GOP hands but I wouldn't by any means rule out the Dems taking it at times.  But I do think the Dems have a pretty good chance at the presidency over the next 16 years.  I don't see either party breaking through to total dominance.  It will still be a nation leaning about 51% GOP to 49% Democrat.

Here's a useful tool for this thread -
http://www.census.gov/population/projections/state/stpjpop.txt - population projections for the states through 2025.  I prefer Series B as I think it is more reflective of true economic situations.  Series A overstates some now-old trends, like CA growth.

I think that these numbers are a little off.  I expect that NC and GA will grow much more than those numbers predict.  Probably FL as well.

[nclib]

Could some southern states (i.e. NC and VA) become new liberal strong-holds?

NC could possibly be politically competitive by 2020. This is one of the few states where the fastest growing areas are liberal.

[opebo]

Interesting thread.  I think that 2020 is not all that far away electorally speaking.  I suspect that the Republican party will still be strong in the House, probably having maintained a majority through '20.  The Senate should stay mostly in GOP hands but I wouldn't by any means rule out the Dems taking it at times.  But I do think the Dems have a pretty good chance at the presidency over the next 16 years.  I don't see either party breaking through to total dominance.  It will still be a nation leaning about 51% GOP to 49% Democrat.

Here's a useful tool for this thread -
http://www.census.gov/population/projections/state/stpjpop.txt - population projections for the states through 2025.  I prefer Series B as I think it is more reflective of true economic situations.  Series A overstates some now-old trends, like CA growth.

I think that these numbers are a little off.  I expect that NC and GA will grow much more than those numbers predict.  Probably FL as well.

Yeah I wouldn't be surprised - the census bureau seems to overstate Western growth, particularly CA, and understand Southern Growth.  Even states like MO and IN could grow a lot more than they show.  A lot of it is about people wanting to live in conservative, inexpensive states these days.  Also, average unemployemnt is a lot lower in the Midwest and parts of the South than on the liberal coasts.

[12th Doctor]

Interesting thread.  I think that 2020 is not all that far away electorally speaking.  I suspect that the Republican party will still be strong in the House, probably having maintained a majority through '20.  The Senate should stay mostly in GOP hands but I wouldn't by any means rule out the Dems taking it at times.  But I do think the Dems have a pretty good chance at the presidency over the next 16 years.  I don't see either party breaking through to total dominance.  It will still be a nation leaning about 51% GOP to 49% Democrat.

Here's a useful tool for this thread -
http://www.census.gov/population/projections/state/stpjpop.txt - population projections for the states through 2025.  I prefer Series B as I think it is more reflective of true economic situations.  Series A overstates some now-old trends, like CA growth.

I think that these numbers are a little off.  I expect that NC and GA will grow much more than those numbers predict.  Probably FL as well.

Yeah I wouldn't be surprised - the census bureau seems to overstate Western growth, particularly CA, and understand Southern Growth.  Even states like MO and IN could grow a lot more than they show.  A lot of it is about people wanting to live in conservative, inexpensive states these days.  Also, average unemployemnt is a lot lower in the Midwest and parts of the South than on the liberal coasts.

Everything you said is very true.  People are leaving the north and California, because of taxes and unemployment and are moving south, or to states like Colorado, Minnesota, Arizona, Nevada and Utah.  I think that these states will be the ones that expirience the next population boom.  By 2020, the MAJORITY of electoral votes could be consentrated in these states.

PS right now it's 228

[Nym90]

The growth rates in the South and West won't continue forever. Eventually they will slow down and the Northeast and Midwest, once they are able to better diversify their economies and emphasize their strengths, will catch back up again in growth rates. It's just a matter of them adjusting, it is already happening on a small scale and will continue to expand.

And to the extent that population does shift from the Northeast and Midwest to the South and West, it will make the South and West more competitive; as liberal voters from the North move south, they'll take their political allegiances with them. It's already happened to a large extent in Florida, and eventually states such as Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia will become swing states too.

There is no way that I can see that either party will achieve dominance. I think that the Presidency, Senate, and House will all be very competitive. Unless there is some major event skewing things one way or the other, I think that both parties will adapt to the pulse of the swing voters while securing their base, and thus we'll continue to see very close elections for quite some time.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

VA has been shifting ever-so-slowly back into the Democrat column to the point that it is a genuine target for a Senator from Massachusetts in a general election...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's a longshot, but if he chooses Governer Warner as his VP he would have a good chance of winning it (and also neighbouring WV).

But yes, VA is clearly trending towards the Democrats!
However FL seems to be going the other way...
I prefer VA to FL anyway

[opebo]

The growth rates in the South and West won't continue forever. Eventually they will slow down and the Northeast and Midwest, once they are able to better diversify their economies and emphasize their strengths, will catch back up again in growth rates. It's just a matter of them adjusting, it is already happening on a small scale and will continue to expand.

And to the extent that population does shift from the Northeast and Midwest to the South and West, it will make the South and West more competitive; as liberal voters from the North move south, they'll take their political allegiances with them. It's already happened to a large extent in Florida, and eventually states such as Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia will become swing states too.

There is no way that I can see that either party will achieve dominance. I think that the Presidency, Senate, and House will all be very competitive. Unless there is some major event skewing things one way or the other, I think that both parties will adapt to the pulse of the swing voters while securing their base, and thus we'll continue to see very close elections for quite some time.

Oh I think you already saw some evidence of this in the 1990's - lower growth and higher unemployment on the West Coast, surprisingly good conditions in what used to be called the Rust Belt.  That term was more appropriate in the 1980's.  Missouri for example is quite vibrant.  In general business and individuals will continue to seek out conservative, lightly taxed locales.

[opebo]

VA has been shifting ever-so-slowly back into the Democrat column to the point that it is a genuine target for a Senator from Massachusetts in a general election...

Its not a genuine target in 2004.  I'd love to see Kerry waste time and money in VA.  Maybe in 2024.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Bush won VA by only 8%. I call that a viable target.

[Beet]

Fastest Population Growth 2000-2003 (Census Bureau)

Nevada             12.2
Arizona              8.8
Florida               6.5
Texas                6.1
Georgia             6.1
Colorado           5.8
Idaho                5.6
Utah                  5.3

Slowest Population Growth

District of Columbia -1.5
North Dakota          -1.3
West Virginia           0.1
Iowa                        0.6
Louisiana                 0.6
Ohio                         0.7
Pennsylvania           0.7
New York                 1.1
Alabama                  1.2

This list shows it's clearly not just an issue of conservative state-vs liberal state. Even if you base your analysis soley on tax policy, it only accounts for economic liberalism vs conservatism. It forgets the Arnold Schwarzeneggers of the nation (granted there aren't many of them). But states like North Dakota, Louisiana, and Alabama growing so slowly shows that there are many other factors at work. Also, Nevada, Arizona, and Florida cannot be listed as the most conservative of states-- the first two went for Clinton twice and Florida once and nearly for Gore. Finally, though not listed, states like Washington, California, Maryland, and Delaware and Oregon are growing faster than the national average, though not as fast as the South.

Anyways, a good argument can still be made that state vs state growth shows that businesses create more jobs in states with more pro-growth policies.

Viewing from the perspective of the House of Reps, Republicans would be just at the start of a period of dominance (Dems controlled it for 60 years, Reps only for 10). However, looking from the perspective of the Presidency, they should be at the end of their period. They have won 6 of 9 Presidential contests in the past four decades, another win this year would make it 7 of 10.

1) The FDR coalition managed a total of 7 of 9 wins from 1932-64.
2) The Northeast Republicans won 7 of 9 from 1896-1928.
3) They also "won" 7 of 9 from 1860 to 1892, although most historians see 1896 as a turning point because of a Democratic renaissance in 1876-92 which was permanently ended in '96. (Democrats won the popular vote in 1876 and 1888 but were denied the presidency...overall they won the popular vote 4 of 5 times from 1876-1892).
3) The Jackson Democrats won 6 of 8 over the Whigs from 1828 to 1856.
4) The Democrat-Republicans won 7 of 9 from 1789-1824.

If you count every 9 elections as a change in the cycle, there should be a change this year. If you count 7 wins as a cycle, there should be a change in '08, towards long-term Democratic dominance. But this is just based on periods of Presidential dominance.