The Democratic base region in 50 years

[Skill and Chance]

That will help in the short term, but the moment the GOP drops the socon act is the moment they bolt from the party.

I don't see them dropping the SoCon platform.  I see them keeping it and using it to appeal to family-oriented Hispanic immigrants to keep the SW from becoming the new Solid South.  And even if they tone it down, they would have to go pretty far to win back college-educated women, for example.  And the Democrats would still have environmentalism for high class appeal.  If it's a pro-gay marriage Republican vs. Joe Manchin, then yes, they should worry about losing the Fairfaxes of the country, but short of that, not really.
  

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Hispanic appeal would come more from simply not running on a kneejerk xenophobic platform. For instance, Newt's made a smart move with a moderate position on immigration. While Hispanics will remain Democratic for economic reasons (the southern Texas areas will probably always be >70% Democratic), a Giuliani-like immigration platform could very well get Republicans up to 40% of the Hispanic vote. Plus, immigration rates are already falling and Hispanic birth rates are lowering. The immigration wave won't last forever.

[freepcrusher]

I still think the dominant strategy for Democrats in the South is to wait 5-15 years for the socially liberal yuppies with master's degrees to hand them VA, NC and GA (in that order).  Those states are larger and growing much faster. 

True for VA and NC but the socially liberal yuppies aren't moving to GA. I mean they elect neanderthals like Price, Gingrey, Westmoreland and Gingrich and Linder in past years for a reason.

[Yelnoc]

I still think the dominant strategy for Democrats in the South is to wait 5-15 years for the socially liberal yuppies with master's degrees to hand them VA, NC and GA (in that order).  Those states are larger and growing much faster. 

True for VA and NC but the socially liberal yuppies aren't moving to GA. I mean they elect neanderthals like Price, Gingrey, Westmoreland and Gingrich and Linder in past years for a reason.

Try to look half a century into the future.

Georgia is unique among southern states when it comes to higher education.  The HOPE program pays for 90% of tuition at state colleges for high school students with 3.0 GPA's or higher, while those with 3.7 or higher have 100% of tuition paid for.  A $2000 credit is offered to private school attendees.  This means that Georgia is likely to maintain many of its college graduates.  UGA and Georgia Tech are top school nationally, and draw thousands of kids to Georgia from across the country.

I'm not saying the transition will be quick, but by 2020 the corridor from Metro-Atlanta east on I-85 to Athens should be strong enough to make Georgia a swing state.

[Skill and Chance]

I still think the dominant strategy for Democrats in the South is to wait 5-15 years for the socially liberal yuppies with master's degrees to hand them VA, NC and GA (in that order).  Those states are larger and growing much faster. 

True for VA and NC but the socially liberal yuppies aren't moving to GA. I mean they elect neanderthals like Price, Gingrey, Westmoreland and Gingrich and Linder in past years for a reason.

Try to look half a century into the future.

Georgia is unique among southern states when it comes to higher education.  The HOPE program pays for 90% of tuition at state colleges for high school students with 3.0 GPA's or higher, while those with 3.7 or higher have 100% of tuition paid for.  A $2000 credit is offered to private school attendees.  This means that Georgia is likely to maintain many of its college graduates.  UGA and Georgia Tech are top school nationally, and draw thousands of kids to Georgia from across the country.

I'm not saying the transition will be quick, but by 2020 the corridor from Metro-Atlanta east on I-85 to Athens should be strong enough to make Georgia a swing state.

GA is going to be significantly harder for the Dems to flip than VA and NC.  Atlanta is strong, but it's basically their only game in town.  They are also dealing with lots of 80% McCain exurbs while the equivalent areas in VA and NC are closer to 65% McCain.   

[Person Man]

2050

This map is fairly balanced today, but it will probably make it very hard for Republicans by 2050. Because of Climate Change, people will be moving into places like Kansas while the big port cities of Florida and New York will be flooded abortions.

This is pretty sci-fi, but...

2100- Global Warming, Shift of Population, Death of Fossil Fuels

[Colbert]

Hi, I search empty map of USA, as the ones you use for make my own maps. But when I download yours, they appears as php and i cant use them on paint. Coudl someone help me?

[izixs]

The maps are created by the atlas site here. Look at the url for the image and adjust as you need:

https://uselectionatlas.org/TOOLS/genusmap.php?year=2012&ev_c=0&pv_p=0&ev_p=0&AL=2;9;5&AK=1;3;5&AZ=2;11;5&AR=2;6;5&CA=2;55;6&CO=1;9;5&CT=2;7;6&DE=2;3;6&DC=1;3;9&FL=1;29;5&GA=0;16;5&HI=1;4;7&ID=1;4;6&IL=2;20;6&IN=2;11;4&IA=2;6;5&KS=1;6;5&KY=2;8;5&LA=2;8;5&MD=1;10;6&MA=1;11;6&MI=2;16;5&MN=1;10;5&MS=2;6;5&MO=2;10;4&MT=1;3;4&NV=1;6;5&NH=2;4;5&NJ=0;14;5&NM=1;5;5&NY=1;29;6&NC=0;15;4&ND=1;3;5&OH=1;18;5&OK=2;7;6&OR=1;7;5&PA=1;20;5&RI=1;4;6&SC=2;9;5&SD=1;3;5&TN=2;11;5&TX=1;38;5&UT=1;6;6&VT=1;3;6&VA=0;13;5&WA=1;12;5&WV=1;5;5&WI=2;10;5&WY=2;3;6&ME=2;2;5&ME1=2;1;6&ME2=2;1;5&NE=1;2;5&NE1=1;1;5&NE2=1;1;4&NE3=1;1;6

[Frodo]

Can you please adjust the link?  You are making this page unreadable. 

[Lucius Quintus Cincinatus Lamar]

Maybe a little something like this?

The bastions of Democratic support would be the West Coast, Southwest, and the South Coast--with a few Democratic strongholds in the Northeast.

How does MS turn into a Democratic island...same for MT?

By 2061, MS will probably be 52-54% Black. 

In Montana, its all the California transplants taking over the western part of the State that deliever it to the Democrats. 

It will be interesting to see what happens if a state goes from a majority white population to a majority franchised black population.  If the black population gets close to 50%, will that trigger a Detroit-Newark type of white flight, but on a state-wide level (eg - flight to west TN, NOLA suburbs and west AL)?

[CultureKing]

Mine is somewhat similar to every one else's:

I think Texas will continue to shift bit by bit to the D's but will stall at the point when it becomes a swing state, making it a must-win for either party every election cycle. Basically Texas comes to control the nation.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Maybe a little something like this?

The bastions of Democratic support would be the West Coast, Southwest, and the South Coast--with a few Democratic strongholds in the Northeast.

This is relatively reasonable. I'd say VT and NY would also be base regions for dems, but SC and MS would still be gop, and FL would be a tossup forever.

Pretty much this. Flip MS too.

[NY Jew]

green is a toss up

Why does WV go back left and MD move to the center?  Other than that, everything looks logical here.

West Virginia based my mining political and demographic predictions (due to my not following WV is one of my weakest guess)

MD is because I'm predicting that there will be somewhat of a black flight in Baltimore similar what other NE and MW cities are now starting to happen.  I think White blue collar workers are going to become Republicans (which is 1 of the reasons why I flipped parts of the NE and MW) .Maryland is one of the fastest growing Orthodox states in America and 50 years from now if that can hold they would be a sizable voting block and I'm assuming that the democrats will be so far gone by then that no democrat will be able to get even 10% of the Orthodox vote.  I think the Republicans will do much better with Black voters then (they will vote at similar rates to jews today).  I think that the Virginia side of DC will be where more of the true liberals will live.  I think that there will be almost no non Orthodox jews in the Baltimore area and much less in the DC area.  (Obviously since this is 50 years from now millions of different unseen factors could come up that make my predictions mute)

[Stardust]

[opebo]

Fifty years is not all that long guys, in our modern world (which doesn't change much politically, alas).

[Indy Prez]

Many (not all) of you don't seem to be considering the emergence of a 7th party system. Entirely different interests will prop up each party (the Dems and GOP may not even exist in 20 years).

But I don't think an electoral college will exist in twenty years and presidents will be elected directly via runoff elections a la Louisiana (VPs will be the runner up in the runoff -so everybody gets rePresidented).

[Devils30]

I think FL will also get more Democratic. If you look at the past decade, the GOP gains have mostly been from turning Northern FL from 55% republican to 70-80%. Now they are maxed out there and heavy population growth in Orlando, Tampa will make it more toward the national average.

[Frodo]

Can you please adjust the link?  You are making this page unreadable. 

[Frodo]

The West and East coasts plus the Southwest. 

[morgieb]

West Coast & South West.

The political demography would also look different. The Midwest would normally go Republican, and they'd also do much better in New England. Meanwhile the Atlantic Coast would be quite Democratic.

[Skill and Chance]

This could also happen if the 2050's are about inequality and immigration ceases to be a wedge issue after a bipartisan agreement.  Also, climate change never gets serious enough to impact the average voter:

I don't think it would be a very strong coalition for the Democrats to have, though.  Almost all of their states would be losing population.
 

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Maybe something like this?

Not a chance.  Until someone educates the public it will be the same as it is now.  I wish though...

[old timey villain]

I still think the dominant strategy for Democrats in the South is to wait 5-15 years for the socially liberal yuppies with master's degrees to hand them VA, NC and GA (in that order).  Those states are larger and growing much faster. 

True for VA and NC but the socially liberal yuppies aren't moving to GA. I mean they elect neanderthals like Price, Gingrey, Westmoreland and Gingrich and Linder in past years for a reason.

Try to look half a century into the future.

Georgia is unique among southern states when it comes to higher education.  The HOPE program pays for 90% of tuition at state colleges for high school students with 3.0 GPA's or higher, while those with 3.7 or higher have 100% of tuition paid for.  A $2000 credit is offered to private school attendees.  This means that Georgia is likely to maintain many of its college graduates.  UGA and Georgia Tech are top school nationally, and draw thousands of kids to Georgia from across the country.

I'm not saying the transition will be quick, but by 2020 the corridor from Metro-Atlanta east on I-85 to Athens should be strong enough to make Georgia a swing state.

GA is going to be significantly harder for the Dems to flip than VA and NC.  Atlanta is strong, but it's basically their only game in town.  They are also dealing with lots of 80% McCain exurbs while the equivalent areas in VA and NC are closer to 65% McCain.   

A lot of those 80% McCain counties aren't that populous compared to their neighbors. Honestly, there are really only two of them like that, Cherokee and Forsyth, and much of their growth has been from inner suburban refugees moving further out. So Georgia is not really adding a lot of strong R voters, they're just shifting.

Some of the other exurban counties went from 60-70% Bush, to weak McCain. Henry County was 66% Bush in '04 but only 53% McCain in '08. Rockdale went from 60% Bush to 54% Obama, a huge shift.

At the same time, Fulton, Dekalb and Clayton continue to become even more solidly blue while Cobb and Gwinnett become more swingy.

Atlanta could make the state a toss up in 10 years.

[Frodo]

Here are a few scenarios, in order of what I think is most likely for the country over the next 50 years.

1. Energy/climate change is the defining issue of the day.  The Democrats become a socially liberal green party with a libertarian streak.  Their base demographic would be the CO, CT or NOVA of today.  Petroleum ties have pulled Texas back to the right later in the century.

2. The #1 issue is economic inequality.  The Democrats become decidedly more populist and the Republicans more libertarian.  The Democratic base demographic is the OH or SW PA of today.  The northeast becomes very competitive and the southwest stops trending D.

 
3. Immigration is the most important issue. The Democrats define themselves as the defenders of immigrants and immigration rights.  The Southwest becomes a one-party region, and they are on top in FL, but the Rust Belt is long gone and the South stops trending toward them.

1 and 3 are looking to happen if the trends permanently continue (which is possible), while something like Map 2, where the map looks more like it did in the early to middle 20th century, could happen with a shift of party platforms, or even issue emphasis.

If the Moral Majority continues to fade, economic issues will naturally take center stage in the South. If Democrats can then tie blacks and poor whites together, the rest is history. Republicans would counter that by trying to hold on to wealthier Southern whites (so we won't see >90% margins in SC or MS), while running a fiscally conservative platform aimed at suburbia and wealthier rural areas. There would be a focus on monetarist economics, tough-on-crime policies, and probably a more aggressive foreign policy. California, with elements of both groups, would become a swing state, as would Texas, New York, and Illinois. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, and Iowa would remain swing states. The Republican base would be, like in the 1960's, in the Mountain West, the Great Plains, and northern New England, while the Democrats would be strongest in the Deep South. Chances are you would have a lot more competitive states as a whole.

A few wild cards to consider in this analysis are:

-the likelihood of another generational economic boom (this time based on the revival of manufacturing as described in the Economist)

-another huge wave of immigrants entering the United States within the next few decades, this time from sub-Saharan Africa and the Islamic world

-and where these new immigrants would likely settle (my personal guess is probably predominately east of the Mississippi)

It would be interesting to see how this would play out politically.  

[5280]

I think this deserves another bump after watching the RNC.  Notice how Romney is the first GOP candidate that never mentioned war in his speech since 1952 Eisenhower?  I noticed the current GOP platform is still the same as 2008, but Romney doesn't want to agree.  

Is this a possible shift in the platform for being isolationists of the war, more moderate on social issues and such?  I noticed they're getting better having Hispanics in their party.  

Could the Democrat party be more for war and appeal to social Conservatives in the future?

What do you guys think so far?