|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 30, 2020, 07:43:40 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)
  2044 Electoral Map
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Print
Author Topic: 2044 Electoral Map  (Read 7555 times)
MassTerp94
Rookie
**
Posts: 39


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 05, 2018, 09:39:46 am »



By 2044, the Democrats have made strong gains in the South while the GOP has maintained a stronger grip on the midwest, due to changing demographics and population changes. However, a few deep southern states have lost considerable population, and thus electoral votes, however Louisiana has started to favor Democrats due to their frequent climate-change related disasters. The Northeast, while still heavily Democratic, has lost some population over the last several decades, however the economic and population boom in Massachusetts has caused the state to regain a seat in Congress that it had lost in 2010. Rhode Island and Connecticut, previously Democratic strongholds, have lost significant population, especially among millenials and Generation Z-ers, and have since become competitive and tend to favor the GOP. Virginia and Maryland have each gained clout due to the growth of the federal government and the jobs that come with it, as well as the area's moderate climate and significant business growth. California has lost four electoral votes in 30 years, due to large numbers of people leaving the state due to its extremely high cost of living and natural disasters including wildfires and earthquakes. In fact, one of these electoral votes was essentially lost due to fatalities from the Great Earthquake in 2034.
Logged
here2view
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,343
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: -3.48

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2018, 09:52:16 am »

Is Chicago leaving Illinois?
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 #2 on: April 05, 2018, 10:48:15 am »

Logically, if Texas and Georgia are Democratic states, the entire rust belt must be solid R because otherwise the map would always strongly favor Democrats depending on the swing states.
Logged
Southern Speaker Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,480
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2018, 10:55:16 am »

Logically, if Texas and Georgia are Democratic states, the entire rust belt must be solid R because otherwise the map would always strongly favor Democrats depending on the swing states.
I think we are likely headed for a dominant-party system where Democrats have an inbuilt advantage in presidential elections.
Hence, IL and MN are still Dem, and the rust belt is simply swingy like it has long been.
The GOP got its spell as a party with an inbuilt advantage - look at the period between 1968 and 1988.
Why wouldn't the Democrats get a similar opportunity? What goes around comes around.
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 #4 on: April 05, 2018, 12:05:08 pm »

Logically, if Texas and Georgia are Democratic states, the entire rust belt must be solid R because otherwise the map would always strongly favor Democrats depending on the swing states.
I think we are likely headed for a dominant-party system where Democrats have an inbuilt advantage in presidential elections.
Hence, IL and MN are still Dem, and the rust belt is simply swingy like it has long been.
The GOP got its spell as a party with an inbuilt advantage - look at the period between 1968 and 1988.
Why wouldn't the Democrats get a similar opportunity? What goes around comes around.
Well, if Texas, Florida, and Georgia are Solid D by 2044, I don't see how Republicans can really even compete on the Presidential level. It would take a realignment for a Republican to win if it comes to that.
Logged
Hoosier_Nick
Nicholas_Roberts
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 766
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.03, S: -7.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2018, 01:26:09 pm »

Logically, if Texas and Georgia are Democratic states, the entire rust belt must be solid R because otherwise the map would always strongly favor Democrats depending on the swing states.
I think we are likely headed for a dominant-party system where Democrats have an inbuilt advantage in presidential elections.
Hence, IL and MN are still Dem, and the rust belt is simply swingy like it has long been.
The GOP got its spell as a party with an inbuilt advantage - look at the period between 1968 and 1988.
Why wouldn't the Democrats get a similar opportunity? What goes around comes around.

Agreed. Republicans don't seem to have a great path to 270 once the sun belt becomes a little more Democratic.
Logged
mvd10
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,752


Political Matrix
E: 2.58, S: -2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2018, 03:33:04 pm »

America isn't built for constant 1-party domination. I guess it's entirely possible (probably even likely) the Dems will win the majority of elections in the coming few decades, but I don't think it will become a borderline one-party state. In that case the Democrats would eventually become either too arrogant or too radical, and the GOP would adapt (though that might take some time with the recent radicalization of the GOP).
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 05, 2018, 05:57:29 pm »

America isn't built for constant 1-party domination. I guess it's entirely possible (probably even likely) the Dems will win the majority of elections in the coming few decades, but I don't think it will become a borderline one-party state. In that case the Democrats would eventually become either too arrogant or too radical, and the GOP would adapt (though that might take some time with the recent radicalization of the GOP).

I think EASILY the most likely scenario is for Democrats to get a very, very significant governing and EC advantage by the 2040s that causes Republicans to move into a 1940s to 1960s position again of being the "measured, conservative, sensible" opposition to "radical liberal ideas."  This will, of course, allow some inroads into groups they're currently offending.  From there, it's anyone's guess how the GOP gets back to 1980s, 1990s and 2000s level strength again, but they will somehow.  These two parties have made it through an AWFUL lot.
Logged
cvparty
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,771
United States


P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 05, 2018, 07:58:22 pm »

I feel like this is a troll post but for one thing wouldn't it make more sense to use 30-year projections
Logged
Not a Partisan Hack ( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡°)
Not a Partisan Thug
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 332
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 05, 2018, 10:42:54 pm »


This is america before the 2nd civil war isn’t it?
Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,993
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 06, 2018, 12:19:56 pm »

FDR 2.0, aka as President Jon Tester, wins reelection in a 49-state landslide as the Democrats finally stick to their roots and shun their neoliberal Fairfax/Fairfield County-type base (which still votes for them becuz of demographics, unfortunately). NH, which remains a staggeringly elastic, libertarian, Independent-minded, contrarian, Republican state at heart (its loyalty to the GOP being rivaled only by Alf Landon’s Vermont), is the lone holdout, voting for Charlie Baker Jr. in his unsuccessful bid for the presidency. The most Democratic state is... right, it doesn’t really merit mention: Montana, naturally, where an ironclad coalition composed of pot-smoking, fat, VIOLENT farmers and other #populist, #libertarian WWC rural folk, latte liberals and affluent voters in the Bozeman area, Native Americans, blue state migrants from the West Coast, and of course educatidz in Missoula has turned the state into a socialist haven and ProgressiveCanadian’s favorite vacation spot.

... Am I doing this right? Seriously though, there is really no way to know what the map will look like in 26 (!) years, especially when you bear in mind how much has changed since 1992. A shot in the dark...



It will really come down to whether the GOP can hold/win Texas, Florida and North Carolina or not.
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 #11 on: April 06, 2018, 12:33:21 pm »

FDR 2.0, aka as President Jon Tester, wins reelection in a 49-state landslide as the Democrats finally stick to their roots and shun their neoliberal Fairfax/Fairfield County-type base (which still votes for them becuz of demographics, unfortunately). NH, which remains a staggeringly elastic, libertarian, Independent-minded, contrarian, Republican state at heart (its loyalty to the GOP being rivaled only by Alf Landon’s Vermont), is the lone holdout, voting for Charlie Baker Jr. in his unsuccessful bid for the presidency. The most Democratic state is... right, it doesn’t really merit mention: Montana, naturally, where an ironclad coalition composed of pot-smoking, fat, VIOLENT farmers and other #populist, #libertarian WWC rural folk, latte liberals and affluent voters in the Bozeman area, Native Americans, blue state migrants from the West Coast, and of course educatidz in Missoula has turned the state into a socialist haven and ProgressiveCanadian’s favorite vacation spot.

... Am I doing this right? Seriously though, there is really no way to know what the map will look like in 26 (!) years, especially when you bear in mind how much has changed since 1992. A shot in the dark...



It will really come down to whether the GOP can hold/win Texas, Florida and North Carolina or not.
New Hampshire has almost always voted to the right of Maine, so the idea that Maine is going to become Likely R while New Hampshire is solid D is pretty hilarious. Equally ridiculous is the idea that Illinois is going to become a toss-up and Utah will only be Tilt-R. Also, by the time Georgia is Safe D, North Carolina almost certainly will be even Safer D.
Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,993
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 06, 2018, 12:52:59 pm »

New Hampshire has almost always voted to the right of Maine, so the idea that Maine is going to become Likely R while New Hampshire is solid D is pretty hilarious.

“Virginia has almost always voted to the right of West Virginia, so the idea that West Virginia is going to become Likely R while Virginia is Solid D is pretty hilarious.” - TexArkana in 1996? (No, I’m not comparing ME to WV, but this argument is stupid.) Democrats still have a lot of room for growth in NH, too.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously the GOP would need to adapt for IL to become a Tossup, but they pretty much have to do that anyway under any scenario in which they want to remain relevant. Also, this is 2044, A LOT can happen, and it’s foolish to assume that the Electoral Map will be the same for all eternity. All that said, Illinois should still be a difficult state for the GOP to win. 

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree here. Obviously you could make a case for NC being Lean or Likely D as well, but I do believe GA is going the way of CO/VA in the long run, regardless of what “strategy” Democrats pursue.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 06, 2018, 01:02:56 pm »

Why is Tennessee only lean Republican?
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 #14 on: April 06, 2018, 01:11:57 pm »

New Hampshire has almost always voted to the right of Maine, so the idea that Maine is going to become Likely R while New Hampshire is solid D is pretty hilarious.

“Virginia has almost always voted to the right of West Virginia, so the idea that West Virginia is going to become Likely R while Virginia is Solid D is pretty hilarious.” - TexArkana in 1996? (No, I’m not comparing ME to WV, but this argument is stupid.) Democrats still have a lot of room for growth in NH, too.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously the GOP would need to adapt for IL to become a Tossup, but they pretty much have to do that anyway under any scenario in which they want to remain relevant. Also, this is 2044, A LOT can happen, and it’s foolish to assume that the Electoral Map will be the same for all eternity. All that said, Illinois should still be a difficult state for the GOP to win. 

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree here. Obviously you could make a case for NC being Lean or Likely D as well, but I do believe GA is going the way of CO/VA in the long run, regardless of what “strategy” Democrats pursue.
With regards to New Hampshire and Maine, these two states are not going to dramatically change in the near future, in my opinion. The demographics of the two states aren't significantly changing, and I don't see a huge influx of liberals or immigrants or what have you. In the end though, it's entirely impossible to predict with any accuracy what an election held 26 years from now is going to look like. Compare the 1992 map to the 2016 map and there are huge, glaring differences that can't really be explained by linear trends or swings. Look at the large number of counties that voted Clinton >70% in 1992 or 1996 and voted Trump >70% in 2016, or the counties that Bush won easily that flipped to Hillary in 2016 (Gwinnett County being a prime example).
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 #15 on: April 06, 2018, 01:37:03 pm »

Yeah, exactly (heck, Dole won Fairfax County 22 years ago, for example). All we can do is take a wild guess and laugh at it in 26 years. Tongue
And W. Bush won Fairfax County as well as recently as 2000.
Logged
Ses
jk2020
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,662



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 06, 2018, 04:49:39 pm »

LMAO at people leaving California due to "natural disasters"

The Southeast is constantly hit by hurricanes. The midwest gets hundreds of tornadoes each year.

California has about one major earthquake per century.

If you go by that logic, Florida would lose WAY more people than CA.
Logged
cvparty
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,771
United States


P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 06, 2018, 05:01:45 pm »

LMAO at people leaving California due to "natural disasters"

The Southeast is constantly hit by hurricanes. The midwest gets hundreds of tornadoes each year.

California has about one major earthquake per century.

If you go by that logic, Florida would lose WAY more people than CA.
one person said that...and they said people would leave primarily due to cost of living. plus it's kind of true florida has a high volume of in-migration that california does not
Logged
jimmie
jamespol
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,707


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 07, 2018, 02:10:49 am »
« Edited: April 07, 2018, 03:41:12 am by Jimmie »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously the GOP would need to adapt for IL to become a Tossup, but they pretty much have to do that anyway under any scenario in which they want to remain relevant. Also, this is 2044, A LOT can happen, and it’s foolish to assume that the Electoral Map will be the same for all eternity. All that said, Illinois should still be a difficult state for the GOP to win.

We all know as of now that Illinois is quite competitive on the state level.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=17&year=2016&f=1&off=10

Problem for the GOP there is that over the tenure of a Republicans time in office is that it is hard to meet the contradictory demands of both the collars and downstate. Also DuPage and Lake County seem to be moving to the Democratic party very quickly.

It is a tough nut to crack for the GOP even if they can be competitive there.

But like you said a lot can change over time. In 1992 Bush 1 carried Dupage County easily and Will was the only Collar County to vote Clinton while Southern Illinois was heavily for Clinton.

In 2016 Clinton carried all the Collar Counties except McHenry and the GOP could not even carry DuPage in the Senatorial contest. Hillary was annihilated in Southern Illinois.

Anyway here is my wild guess for 2044

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 #19 on: April 07, 2018, 12:47:08 pm »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously the GOP would need to adapt for IL to become a Tossup, but they pretty much have to do that anyway under any scenario in which they want to remain relevant. Also, this is 2044, A LOT can happen, and it’s foolish to assume that the Electoral Map will be the same for all eternity. All that said, Illinois should still be a difficult state for the GOP to win.

We all know as of now that Illinois is quite competitive on the state level.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=17&year=2016&f=1&off=10

Problem for the GOP there is that over the tenure of a Republicans time in office is that it is hard to meet the contradictory demands of both the collars and downstate. Also DuPage and Lake County seem to be moving to the Democratic party very quickly.

It is a tough nut to crack for the GOP even if they can be competitive there.

But like you said a lot can change over time. In 1992 Bush 1 carried Dupage County easily and Will was the only Collar County to vote Clinton while Southern Illinois was heavily for Clinton.

In 2016 Clinton carried all the Collar Counties except McHenry and the GOP could not even carry DuPage in the Senatorial contest. Hillary was annihilated in Southern Illinois.

Anyway here is my wild guess for 2044


This map could just as easily happen in 2020.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 07, 2018, 05:58:42 pm »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously the GOP would need to adapt for IL to become a Tossup, but they pretty much have to do that anyway under any scenario in which they want to remain relevant. Also, this is 2044, A LOT can happen, and it’s foolish to assume that the Electoral Map will be the same for all eternity. All that said, Illinois should still be a difficult state for the GOP to win.

We all know as of now that Illinois is quite competitive on the state level.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=17&year=2016&f=1&off=10

Problem for the GOP there is that over the tenure of a Republicans time in office is that it is hard to meet the contradictory demands of both the collars and downstate. Also DuPage and Lake County seem to be moving to the Democratic party very quickly.

It is a tough nut to crack for the GOP even if they can be competitive there.

But like you said a lot can change over time. In 1992 Bush 1 carried Dupage County easily and Will was the only Collar County to vote Clinton while Southern Illinois was heavily for Clinton.

In 2016 Clinton carried all the Collar Counties except McHenry and the GOP could not even carry DuPage in the Senatorial contest. Hillary was annihilated in Southern Illinois.

Anyway here is my wild guess for 2044


This map could just as easily happen in 2020.

Ridiculous.
Logged
Southern Delegate Spark
Spark498
Atlas Politician
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,279
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.88, S: -1.74


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 07, 2018, 06:34:10 pm »

Logged
jimmie
jamespol
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,707


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 08, 2018, 09:14:35 am »


Nope Illinois and New Hampshire will generally by titanium Democratic by 2044. Democrats regularly earning > 60 % of the vote in both states.
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 #23 on: April 08, 2018, 10:25:40 am »
« Edited: April 08, 2018, 04:00:16 pm by America's Sweetheart ❤ »

Why do Utah and West Virginia become much more competitive? Why is Alabama rock solid R when Mississippi and Louisiana are toss-ups? Shouldn't Virginia be a darker shade of red? And how does Vermont vote to the right of New Hampshire?
Logged
Bernie Sanders would be a Menshevik in Europe
Jalawest2
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,229


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: April 08, 2018, 03:56:05 pm »

Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 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