Where do you think we will be?

[Gustaf]

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.

There isn't really a trend from strongly Democratic states to strongly Republican states, rather from strong states on both sides, as well as from some Dem leaners to mostly GOP leaners. This is a problem for the Dems, but doesn't mean that they're out of business.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I think that after this year's election, the party that loses is going to dry up and blow away.

If the Democrats lose, the party will fade and be replaced by one that's far more liberal.

If the Republicans lose, they will fade and not be replaced, because nobody will miss them.

[12th Doctor]

I think that after this year's election, the party that loses is going to dry up and blow away.

If the Democrats lose, the party will fade and be replaced by one that's far more liberal.

If the Republicans lose, they will fade and not be replaced, because nobody will miss them.

I must aggree with you in that I beleive that it will be very difficult for the party that losses this election ot regain control.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The GOP suvived the split with the Progressives... and the Democrats suvived the Civil War.

[Nation]

I'm having more fun reading other people's opinions on all this.

I can't say in the next twenty years, but right now, in the next 5-10, we'll be seeing a "Republican Revolution" where conservatism is popular, and some Republican Presidents being elected in 04 and 08.

I still hope we put up a fighting chance this year.

[Reaganfan]

2004- Bush/Cheney wins against Kerry/Edwards
2006- Giuliani wins Senate seat over Clinton
2008- Giuliani/Rice win over Clinton/Dashile
2012- Giuliani/Rice wins re-election against Biden/Conrad
2016....

[© tweed]

2004: Bush/Cheney over Kerry/Edwards
2008: Edwards/Ford over (Jeb) Bush/Rice
2012: Edwards/Ford over Frist/Talent

[opebo]

2004: Bush/Cheney over Kerry/Edwards
2008: Edwards/Ford over (Jeb) Bush/Rice
2012: Edwards/Ford over Frist/Talent

I like your prediction, the only criticism I have of it is that I predict the 2008 election will be taking place during a boom, so that might give Jeb a boost (or Kerry).

[© tweed]

2004: Bush/Cheney over Kerry/Edwards
2008: Edwards/Ford over (Jeb) Bush/Rice
2012: Edwards/Ford over Frist/Talent

I like your prediction, the only criticism I have of it is that I predict the 2008 election will be taking place during a boom, so that might give Jeb a boost (or Kerry).

I think Bush will be *very* unpopular by the end of his second term, resulting in a victory for Edwards.

Hillary doesn't win the 2008 Dem nomination because she is defeated in Senate Re-election by Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

[MarkDel]

Of this Nation,

I'm surprised to see you predict a "Republican Revolution" over the next 10 years. Can you explain why you think this? I think you might be right, but I'm always worried that my own bias might play too large a factor in my analysis, though I do make efforts to remain as objective as possible. I would be interested in seeing why you think this.

Thanks

[Platypus]

I simply cannot wait for the day when North Dakota and South Dakota merge. I'm not sure if thats 2 or 3 less EVs for the Repubicans...

[Nation]

Of this Nation,

I'm surprised to see you predict a "Republican Revolution" over the next 10 years. Can you explain why you think this? I think you might be right, but I'm always worried that my own bias might play too large a factor in my analysis, though I do make efforts to remain as objective as possible. I would be interested in seeing why you think this.

Thanks

Well, perhaps revolution is too strong a word, but nowadays, the term "liberal" has started to be equated with hellfire and brimstone. No one wants to be deemed a liberal. "They're evil. Their policies will destroy us all!"  Also, whether or not a massive uprising for conservative politics is the reality, it will most likely appear that way. I believe this because the Republicans seem to be able to move further to the right without there being a problem, and if the Democrats move further to the left, they get slammed, because apparentely that's not electable. If the people on the right move more to the right, and the Democrats move further towards the center, there will not be much room left for any true liberals who want to make a difference in the important parts of the Democratic party. In the end, I believe this will all be affected heavily by whoever wins in 2004.

My prediction, if Bush wins:

2008- Giuliani/Rice/Frist/McCain, some variation of that.
2012 - They win re-election.

If Kerry/Edwards (presuming that's the combo) wins in 04,

2008- Kerry re-elected
2012- Edwards wins

Needless to say, this election is crucial, IMO.

[Gustaf]

Of this Nation,

I'm surprised to see you predict a "Republican Revolution" over the next 10 years. Can you explain why you think this? I think you might be right, but I'm always worried that my own bias might play too large a factor in my analysis, though I do make efforts to remain as objective as possible. I would be interested in seeing why you think this.

Thanks

Well, perhaps revolution is too strong a word, but nowadays, the term "liberal" has started to be equated with hellfire and brimstone. No one wants to be deemed a liberal. "They're evil. Their policies will destroy us all!"  Also, whether or not a massive uprising for conservative politics is the reality, it will most likely appear that way. I believe this because the Republicans seem to be able to move further to the right without there being a problem, and if the Democrats move further to the left, they get slammed, because apparentely that's not electable. If the people on the right move more to the right, and the Democrats move further towards the center, there will not be much room left for any true liberals who want to make a difference in the important parts of the Democratic party. In the end, I believe this will all be affected heavily by whoever wins in 2004.

My prediction, if Bush wins:

2008- Giuliani/Rice/Frist/McCain, some variation of that.
2012 - They win re-election.

If Kerry/Edwards (presuming that's the combo) wins in 04,

2008- Kerry re-elected
2012- Edwards wins

Needless to say, this election is crucial, IMO.

Yeah, it's weird that the GOP seems much more extreme than the Democrats. And this is not in relation to the electorate, but on an ideological scale.

[zachman]

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas should merge to form Montaminghodakota, a giant state, with Bismarck the capital.

I will hear complaints from the republicans on the board about this so I will propose the following other changes:

Delaware and West Virginia become part of Maryland.
Vermont and Maine become part of New Hampshire. Rhode Island becomes part of Massachusetts.

[Nation]

Hell no, we don't want those losers.

And why not just keep the states the way they are? The system is fine.

[ilikeverin]

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas should merge to form Montaminghodakota, a giant state, with Bismarck the capital.

I agree with this, just so we can have Montaminghodakota!

[zachman]

Its fine except for the upper western states will not grow, and do not deserve two senators or extra electoral votes either. Vermont and Delaware don't deserve senators either.

Yeah the system is fine, but I would cut back states if you were to admit other states.

California should also be split in my dream system.

[Nation]

North and South California, one for the Dems and one for the Republicans?

[opebo]

I'm all for splitting states to gain Senate advantage.  A Southern California could be devised that would lean strongly Republican, if it included a huge proportion of inland California.  You could even leave LA in Northern California and have only San Diego and the whole Central Valley in Republican California.

My own state would be better if we jettisoned the City of St. Louis into Illinois, which is hopelessly Democrat anyway, and made North and South Missouri - which without STL would both be reliably GOP.

[zachman]

California could be broken into four states and each would still be largely populated. Texas and New York could each be divided into two states. El Paso could be traded to New Mexico for some bead necklaces, and two dozen immigrants to be named later.

[12th Doctor]

Acctually, by treaty whenever Texas entered the union, they retained the right to split up Texas into upto 5 different states at any time they chose.  They still retain this right to my knowledge.

[12th Doctor]

The other question that looms over-head is- will Puerto Rico ever become a state?

[Nation]

PR should become a state -- toss in American Samoa, too.

[opebo]

Acctually, by treaty whenever Texas entered the union, they retained the right to split up Texas into upto 5 different states at any time they chose.  They still retain this right to my knowledge.

I'll bet Tom DeLay is having a look at this one - assuming you could get eight GOP senators to just two Democrat in the Rio Grande area.  

[Gustaf]

PR should become a state -- toss in American Samoa, too.

I also think that sounds pretty reasonable.