|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 03, 2020, 03:41:15 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: Virginiá)
  2050 electoral votes
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: 2050 electoral votes  (Read 4210 times)
DPKdebator
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,547
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.03, S: 2.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 25, 2017, 02:38:30 pm »

How many electoral votes do you see each state having in 2050? (assuming the number of seats doesn't change)



My guesstimate would be this:
Logged
libertpaulian
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,618
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 25, 2017, 02:55:02 pm »

Is this post-2050?  If so, Florida would likely have 34-35 seats, assuming the state's population growth rates remain constant.
Logged
Oryxslayer
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,988


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 25, 2017, 05:44:07 pm »
« Edited: November 25, 2017, 05:50:37 pm by Oryxslayer »

Don't buy CA losing seats - how exactly does this happen? If it is drought then why are the more vulnerable Colorado Rover states boom? I don't buy a lack of growth, CA has never stopped growing - the entire state isn't the high priced bay area. The only way I think CA can lose 5 districts in 3 cycles (CA is keeping all 53 in 2020, and earlier in the cycle was on track for 54) is a nuclear strile from NK, which isn't the best thing for these maps.

Similarly, Florida only haiming 3 seats isn't possible. Projections put it ar a gain of 2 this cycle, which means Florida only gains 1 seat in3 cycles. No.

Arizona gains 7, when they are currently gaining 1ish a cycle. Perhaps more growth could change that.

Utah gains 3??? Utah currently will only gain 1 in 2030. How does it gain two more? Does lighting growth occur in SLC? If so, then why is the state still safe R?

NY losing 7. Huh? NY is currently losing one a cycle, putting the state at a minimum of 25 EVs in 2050. The other thing about NY though is NYC and tge suburbs are still growing, upstate is just shrinking to fast for that growth to matter. Eventually this soft floor of NYC growth will prevent the state from losing a seat some cycles, but this may not happen by 2020.
Logged
bagelman
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,102
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -2.43

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 25, 2017, 06:40:32 pm »

CA has high levels of emigration already, so it is not at all unlikely to say that it could lose seats.
Logged
#Solid4096
Solid4096
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,336


Political Matrix
E: -9.25, S: -8.88

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 25, 2017, 06:50:21 pm »

these electoral vote numbers in your estimate map seen disastrous for Democrats.
Logged
Free Bird
TheHawk
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,892
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 25, 2017, 07:16:17 pm »

I get Arizona and Georgia turning to Lean D and Texas becoming a swing state again, but I've seen more than one person show Connecticut and sometimes Rhode Island becoming Republican again by about 2044 on average. Why is this?
Logged
Strudelcutie4427
Singletxguyforfun
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,390
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 25, 2017, 10:30:20 pm »

Don't buy CA losing seats - how exactly does this happen? If it is drought then why are the more vulnerable Colorado Rover states boom? I don't buy a lack of growth, CA has never stopped growing - the entire state isn't the high priced bay area. The only way I think CA can lose 5 districts in 3 cycles (CA is keeping all 53 in 2020, and earlier in the cycle was on track for 54) is a nuclear strile from NK, which isn't the best thing for these maps.

Similarly, Florida only haiming 3 seats isn't possible. Projections put it ar a gain of 2 this cycle, which means Florida only gains 1 seat in3 cycles. No.

Arizona gains 7, when they are currently gaining 1ish a cycle. Perhaps more growth could change that.

Utah gains 3??? Utah currently will only gain 1 in 2030. How does it gain two more? Does lighting growth occur in SLC? If so, then why is the state still safe R?

NY losing 7. Huh? NY is currently losing one a cycle, putting the state at a minimum of 25 EVs in 2050. The other thing about NY though is NYC and tge suburbs are still growing, upstate is just shrinking to fast for that growth to matter. Eventually this soft floor of NYC growth will prevent the state from losing a seat some cycles, but this may not happen by 2020.

Earthquake. Its bound to happen in the next 40years
Logged
libertpaulian
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,618
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 26, 2017, 01:57:10 am »
« Edited: November 26, 2017, 02:01:18 am by libertpaulian »

I get Arizona and Georgia turning to Lean D and Texas becoming a swing state again, but I've seen more than one person show Connecticut and sometimes Rhode Island becoming Republican again by about 2044 on average. Why is this?
The GOP likely moderates on social issues.  Examples: moderately pro-life on abortion, but doesn't take an "Every sperm is sacred" approach; gives up on opposing LGBT rights; supports weed legalization, etc.  The Northeast is secularizing at a rapid rate, and I could see Christians being a minority in New England by the 2050s.  The GOP would HAVE to adapt to such a demographic reality by that point.

Economically, they support policies that don't hurt white-collar suburban voters and have a more fiscally disciplined policy.

Their foreign policy would likely be somewhere in the middle between Ron Paul and Bill Kristol.
Logged
🌐
Blairite
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,266
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 26, 2017, 03:32:18 am »

Don't buy CA losing seats - how exactly does this happen? If it is drought then why are the more vulnerable Colorado Rover states boom? I don't buy a lack of growth, CA has never stopped growing - the entire state isn't the high priced bay area. The only way I think CA can lose 5 districts in 3 cycles (CA is keeping all 53 in 2020, and earlier in the cycle was on track for 54) is a nuclear strile from NK, which isn't the best thing for these maps.

Similarly, Florida only haiming 3 seats isn't possible. Projections put it ar a gain of 2 this cycle, which means Florida only gains 1 seat in3 cycles. No.

Arizona gains 7, when they are currently gaining 1ish a cycle. Perhaps more growth could change that.

Utah gains 3??? Utah currently will only gain 1 in 2030. How does it gain two more? Does lighting growth occur in SLC? If so, then why is the state still safe R?

NY losing 7. Huh? NY is currently losing one a cycle, putting the state at a minimum of 25 EVs in 2050. The other thing about NY though is NYC and tge suburbs are still growing, upstate is just shrinking to fast for that growth to matter. Eventually this soft floor of NYC growth will prevent the state from losing a seat some cycles, but this may not happen by 2020.

Earthquake. Its bound to happen in the next 40years
Yet people keep moving to the low-lying places that get routinely slammed by hurricanes? Earthquakes aren't that bad, CA is built for them, and the last ones didn't slow down growth. If anything, I see California's zoning getting liberalized, bringing statewide housing prices closer to the $200,000s, and further encouraging population growth. Conversely, I don't see long term growth in NC/GA/etc. At the end of the day, sprawly office parks with lowish wages can be anywhere.
Logged
Free Bird
TheHawk
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,892
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 27, 2017, 06:25:46 pm »

Florida's just eternally damned to swing state status, isn't it?
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 597
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.00, S: 4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 27, 2017, 09:39:43 pm »

why is MS a swing state and IL republican?
Logged
Mondale
Mondale_was_an_insidejob
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,568
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 27, 2017, 09:50:17 pm »

Florida will be underwater by then
Logged
Strudelcutie4427
Singletxguyforfun
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,390
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 28, 2017, 09:27:50 pm »

Don't buy CA losing seats - how exactly does this happen? If it is drought then why are the more vulnerable Colorado Rover states boom? I don't buy a lack of growth, CA has never stopped growing - the entire state isn't the high priced bay area. The only way I think CA can lose 5 districts in 3 cycles (CA is keeping all 53 in 2020, and earlier in the cycle was on track for 54) is a nuclear strile from NK, which isn't the best thing for these maps.

Similarly, Florida only haiming 3 seats isn't possible. Projections put it ar a gain of 2 this cycle, which means Florida only gains 1 seat in3 cycles. No.

Arizona gains 7, when they are currently gaining 1ish a cycle. Perhaps more growth could change that.

Utah gains 3??? Utah currently will only gain 1 in 2030. How does it gain two more? Does lighting growth occur in SLC? If so, then why is the state still safe R?

NY losing 7. Huh? NY is currently losing one a cycle, putting the state at a minimum of 25 EVs in 2050. The other thing about NY though is NYC and tge suburbs are still growing, upstate is just shrinking to fast for that growth to matter. Eventually this soft floor of NYC growth will prevent the state from losing a seat some cycles, but this may not happen by 2020.

Earthquake. Its bound to happen in the next 40years
Yet people keep moving to the low-lying places that get routinely slammed by hurricanes? Earthquakes aren't that bad, CA is built for them, and the last ones didn't slow down growth. If anything, I see California's zoning getting liberalized, bringing statewide housing prices closer to the $200,000s, and further encouraging population growth. Conversely, I don't see long term growth in NC/GA/etc. At the end of the day, sprawly office parks with lowish wages can be anywhere.

Depends where it’s centrred and how strong. For example a 7.5+ along the San Andreas near San Fran, San Jose, or LA would make Katrina and Harvey look like a summer rain storm. But yeah Cali is better primed than more at risk areas like Memphis in the New Madrid zone or Seattle which is sandwiched between a cascadia mega quake and Mt. Ranier sending lahars down into the city
Logged
P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong
razze
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,665
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -4.96


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 28, 2017, 09:46:51 pm »
« Edited: November 28, 2017, 09:50:45 pm by razze »

Agree. I see us as a Likely D, Virginia-sized state with a whole lot of single-issue-climate-change-policy voters, maybe Louisiana is like this too (just with a much smaller total population), and to a lesser degree NC and VA
Logged
Bernie Sanders would be a Menshevik in Europe
Jalawest2
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,232


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 29, 2017, 09:50:58 pm »

2048:
Logged
Bernie Sanders would be a Menshevik in Europe
Jalawest2
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,232


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 29, 2017, 09:55:38 pm »
« Edited: November 29, 2017, 09:57:19 pm by Jalawest2 »

2048 margins:

Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 597
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.00, S: 4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 29, 2017, 11:36:38 pm »

why this map?
Logged
Keep cool-idge
Benjamin Harrison he is w
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,774
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 30, 2017, 05:04:08 pm »

Why would Massachusetts and Virginia be republican but not North Carolina and Maine?
Logged
America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗
TexArkana
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,432
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: November 30, 2017, 06:21:56 pm »

What causes this realignment?
Logged
Bernie Sanders would be a Menshevik in Europe
Jalawest2
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,232


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: November 30, 2017, 10:25:32 pm »

Moderate PA republican vs Huey Long esque democrat from the south.
Logged
Keep cool-idge
Benjamin Harrison he is w
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,774
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: December 02, 2017, 07:26:58 pm »

Moderate PA republican vs Huey Long esque democrat from the south.
So wouldn’t North Carolina be republican?
Logged
Bernie Sanders would be a Menshevik in Europe
Jalawest2
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,232


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: December 02, 2017, 11:00:42 pm »

Moderate PA republican vs Huey Long esque democrat from the south.
So wouldn’t North Carolina be republican?
NC is close, but climate change voters swing it D (by only two points)
Logged
America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗
TexArkana
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,432
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: December 02, 2017, 11:23:05 pm »

Moderate PA republican vs Huey Long esque democrat from the south.
I would have thought the entire South would be Democratic in this scenario.
Logged
April 2, 2020 over one million cases.
tmcusa2
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,495
Uruguay


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: December 17, 2017, 02:36:32 pm »

It's impossible to say whether the map will favor Democrats or Republicans that far in the future, but unless states like TX,FL, & OH (and a few others) start trending in the Democrats' favor in the next 10-20 years the Democrats could find that they have a disadvantage in the electoral college. It is within the plausible realm of possibility that FL could be a key swing state unless it moves more and more into the Democratic column. I don't know, but the map has definitely been moving in the GOP direction for the past 50 years or so.

Since (after) 1976 the Democrats have been losing the confederate states which now make up a large portion of the GOP base and the odds that a Democrat will ever lose the popular vote and win the electoral college are getting slimmer and slimmer and the possibility of the reverse is either getting more likely or remaining the same.

By 2032, the Democrats will have a hard time creating a firewall, since the current map is shifting toward a GOP advantage, unless states like FL or OH start trending more Democratic.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,146
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: December 17, 2017, 03:55:11 pm »
« Edited: December 17, 2017, 09:15:06 pm by Skill and Chance »

Agree. I see us as a Likely D, Virginia-sized state with a whole lot of single-issue-climate-change-policy voters, maybe Louisiana is like this too (just with a much smaller total population), and to a lesser degree NC and VA

I could see a dystopian scenario where the Gulf Coast states are all near unanimous D with half their current EV due to single issue climate change voters, but 2050 is way too soon for that.  I could see it in 2100, though. 

When it comes to New England, I think there could be a big divergence of trends between CT and MA and the other states.  Dem improvement with white college+ voters should be able to completely lock down CT and MA even if working class whites in New England start voting like they do in Appalachia (which is not remotely impossible). 

Also, I wouldn't rule out Texas crossing California for 1st place in population by the 2050 census, though it probably won't happen until 2060-2070.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines