Future voting patterns....

[Gustaf]

I don't think the future is going to look that Democratic.  The two party system tends towards a fairly even division, because the parties shift their positions competitively over time.

Exactly.

[Gustaf]

On the topic of parties changing, I definitely see the US growing more socially moderate. The Southern WASPs, who uphold pld-fashioned conservatism are likely to expereicne continuous decline. On eceonomy I'm less sure, but I'd imagine more free trade and possibly more liberal domestic policies, taking care of the poor etc. It's hard to see the US move in the other direction, anyway. But baby boomers retiring might cause higher taxes, and with the huge deficit I don't really see any new spending being done for some time.

[Jyrki]

I'm not going to be so arrogant as to try to predict future trends in all 50 states...

Basically what will probably happen is:

1. What's left of the old North-South divide will disappear.
2. An East (Democrat)-West (Republican) divide will open up.

"What's left of the old North-South divide will disappear"
It has never been stronger! Gore-Bush was the most significant "North-South divide" of the last fifty years.
The division between the Right (South) and the Left (North) is the same since Lincoln in 1860...
If you look at the electoral map of 1896 and at the one of 2000, you'll see that the right-wing states and the left-wing states are the same (the Republican party and the Democratic party switching positions).

[CTguy]

That's very interesting... and I notice even way back then Vermont was one of the (if not the) most liberal state/s.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I'm not going to be so arrogant as to try to predict future trends in all 50 states...

Basically what will probably happen is:

1. What's left of the old North-South divide will disappear.
2. An East (Democrat)-West (Republican) divide will open up.

That East-West divide was actually more prevalent 20-30 years ago, before the boom in Hispanic population, when the Republicans dominated California and the Dems still held most of the South.
See the EV map from 1976.  

The Hispanic population in the West will only increase in the next few decades, so I don't see this divide returning anytime soon.

[CTguy]

But Bush will probably do better with Mexicans because of his decision to look the other way on immigration problems...

I almost wonder though, if it's not some big scheme to register all the illegals so they know where they are and then ship them all back...  nah...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

*Sighs*

I seriously doubt that Hispanics are as solidly Democrat as is often assumed...
But that's not my point.
Look at the map I posted

N.B
The North-South divide was not very strong in 2000 (Gore won +40% in every SE state), however a East/Inland West/Coastal West divide is clearly visable.
West does not=CA+OR+WA...
Look at Bush's (carefully cultivated) image: a cowboy. That is how he WANTS to be seen...

N.B II
Back in 1900 D did NOT=conservative and R did NOT=liberal.
The Republican Party was conservative then as well(don't be fooled by the Progressive wing...)

N.B III
Vermont is a "small c", rustic, small town conservative state with progressive leanings.
Has been for... ever really

[TheWildCard]

Just for the record and in case no one has pointed it ou CA is trending conservitive...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Just for the record and in case no one has pointed it ou CA is trending conservitive...

...so is Oregon.
meanwhile... VA, NC et al are trending Democrat.

[angus]

Just for the record and in case no one has pointed it ou CA is trending conservitive...

This has been repeatedly pointed out.  But thanks.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Just for the record and in case no one has pointed it ou CA is trending conservitive...

What evidence does anyone have that CA is trending conservative? (Other than Schwarzenegger, who is not conservative). It was only 3% more Democratic than the national average in 1996, but was 11% more Democratic than the national average in 2000.

The Mountain and Plains states have been trending Republican, but they are all very small.  The growth areas in the West (AZ, NV) are generally trending Democratic.

[CTguy]

*Sighs*

I seriously doubt that Hispanics are as solidly Democrat as is often assumed...
But that's not my point.
Look at the map I posted

N.B
The North-South divide was not very strong in 2000 (Gore won +40% in every SE state), however a East/Inland West/Coastal West divide is clearly visable.
West does not=CA+OR+WA...
Look at Bush's (carefully cultivated) image: a cowboy. That is how he WANTS to be seen...

N.B II
Back in 1900 D did NOT=conservative and R did NOT=liberal.
The Republican Party was conservative then as well(don't be fooled by the Progressive wing...)

N.B III
Vermont is a "small c", rustic, small town conservative state with progressive leanings.
Has been for... ever really

Define a "conservative state with progressive leanings" please.

[angus]

Nick,
I was not speaking about Schwarzennegger.  I do not regard him as particluarly liberal or conservative, but rather in the middle by California standards.  In any case, I certainly didn't vote for him (though I may next time.)  I moved here about three years ago, and as everyone knows I'm a serious archconservative.  So there's at least one more Bush vote in CA than last time.  No, one data point does not make a trend.  But consider all the unemployed twenty-something codewriting geeks laid off in '00 and'01.  Most will move Back East to live with mommy and daddy till their emotional maturity catches up with their educational maturity.  They will take their Albert Gore pseudoliberalism with them.  Thus the trend.  

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm too lazy to make a map, but here's my predictions:

NM will become heavily Dem
AZ will go from leaning Republican to leaning Dem
same with NV and CO
VA will become a tossup state
NH will stay Republican on local politics but will lean Dem in presidential elections
FL will become heavily Dem, especially if the Cuban vote continutes to desolidfy
TX will become winnable, especially since whites may be a minority in 15 years.

Georgia strikes me as getting MORE conservative and Republican, not less, although Atlanta is not conservative, it is a heavily Democratic city and much like New Orleans in relation to its surroundings, and I can't see NC trending Dem in national elections in 15 years, although it may become winnable again. But I'm expecting VA to have the biggest change. It probably won't even be considered south anymore, and will have more in common with Maryland than Alabama.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Define a "conservative state with progressive leanings" please.

"Small c"-conservative=don't like change

[Gustaf]

I see the Dems taking the coasts and the Republcains the non.coast, with the SOuth-West being the main exception.

[angus]

I think the carolinas, louisiana, texas, and florida will also be exceptions to your coastal rule.  And Alaska, of course.  Your SW exception is based, I assume, on the assumption of continued exploitation of minorities by the Democrats.  I don't think that will last, but its just a guess.

[12th Doctor]

Supersoulty that's a good point.  Sixty years ago NY had twice as many electoral votes as CA, now CA has nearly twice as many as NY.  And American Airlines, worlds largest carrier, moved from Chicago, IL to Fort Worth, TX in the late 90s.  But it's more of a Westward, or Southwesterly trend, I think.  Maybe that's nitpicking.  It brings up the point about how the Kerry people like to suggest they don't need any states in "The South" because Republicans racked up victories without winning any of those states for almost a hundred years!  But back in those days that region had only about 20% of the total, whereas now it may be more like 30 to 35% of the total, depending on what you count.

I am curious as to why you keep suggesting Atlanta though.  At first, I thought it was an obvious reference to Futurama (New New York, the lost city of Atlanta, etc.)  But now I going to go out on a limb and assume you're serious.  Why Atlanta, Georgia?

No I'm acctually serious about Atlanta.  It is the most well connected city in the world when it comes to transportation and communications wise it is the most connected city in the country behind New York.  It has become a BIG tech center and currently hold the head quarters of I think 16 Fortune 500 companies.  It is the best posstioned city to rival New York if the south-ward treand continues.

[angus]

good point.  I just looked it up and Hartsfield airport is the busiest in the nation.  But most of that's connecting traffic.  Miami is too likely to be blown away by rain and wind, New Orleans is an HIV-infested dungpit where 20 bucks will get you a pretty good time, and Houston is a place where you're more likely to be shot than robbed.

I'd guess Dallas for the center of commerce for the SxSW region in the long run.  Its growth rate is phenomenal, there are no mountains or oceans nearby to inhibit its sprawl.  It is very white-collar friendly and pro-business.  Probably as much or more so than Atlanta.  And it doesn't have all the historical baggage of Atlanta.  (well, there was that famous bullet which killed two people.  grassy knoll anyone?  LOL)  Basically, it was a shack on the trinity river in 1830.  Now its a futuristically magnificient Oz of glass and steel.  No BS.  I was living in north Arlington when the famous landmark Cotton Exchange was destroyed to make room for a big glass high-rise.  Lots of protests, but none with the bigs bucks to stop the developers.  My kinda republicans.

[Gustaf]

I think the carolinas, louisiana, texas, and florida will also be exceptions to your coastal rule.  And Alaska, of course.  Your SW exception is based, I assume, on the assumption of continued exploitation of minorities by the Democrats.  I don't think that will last, but its just a guess.

I wasn't counting Texas, admittedly...I never actually thought about Texas as coastal, you know... I do think Texas will trend Demcoratic, but I'm not sure how far that will take it. South Carolina might be another exception, I'll give you that. And Alaska, lol, what can I say.

[opebo]

How about the Most Static State - the state that changes the least.  

I suggest Pennsylvania.  

[Gustaf]

How about the Most Static State - the state that changes the least.  

I suggest Pennsylvania.  

I think PA is trending GOP...

[angus]

Gustaf,
If you look at the last eight contests, it's 4 of 8.  That's a little selective, as most talking heads go back ten contests.  In that case it is 6D and 4R.  If you go way back it is more GOP.  I guess you'd have to define 'trending republican'  But in 3 of the last 3 elections its votes went to the Democrat, so a GOP victory this year doesn't mean a trend.  I note that in '92 Perot got almost 19% there and in '96 he got over 8 percent.  It is easy to overanalyze Pennsylvania.  and fun.  and futile.

opebo,
most static = indiana.

[12th Doctor]

How about the Most Static State - the state that changes the least.  

I suggest Pennsylvania.  

New York or Massechusetts.

[12th Doctor]

I'm too lazy to make a map, but here's my predictions:

NM will become heavily Dem
AZ will go from leaning Republican to leaning Dem
same with NV and CO
VA will become a tossup state
NH will stay Republican on local politics but will lean Dem in presidential elections
FL will become heavily Dem, especially if the Cuban vote continutes to desolidfy
TX will become winnable, especially since whites may be a minority in 15 years.

Georgia strikes me as getting MORE conservative and Republican, not less, although Atlanta is not conservative, it is a heavily Democratic city and much like New Orleans in relation to its surroundings, and I can't see NC trending Dem in national elections in 15 years, although it may become winnable again. But I'm expecting VA to have the biggest change. It probably won't even be considered south anymore, and will have more in common with Maryland than Alabama.

The Cuban vote isn't desolidifying, on the contrary, in 2000, Bush got a higher percentage of it than any candidate since Nixon.