|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 05, 2020, 03:31:07 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)
  GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era (search mode)
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era  (Read 4901 times)
AN63093
63093
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 886


Political Matrix
E: 0.06, S: 2.17

« on: August 12, 2019, 12:11:33 pm »

I could see a 2040s-ish GOP win electoral map looking something like this:




Good map.  Something like that is my current guess for where the future coalitions will be.. I hesitate to say the path "beyond Trump-era" as the OP did, because of course, that presumes the Trump "era" is something that ends with his administration, as opposed to a indicator of where the parties are going.  So I will just say "the future."

One state I would probably flip is NJ.  I would also consider IL, which could become a swing state again- if we're talking about a 20-30+ year timeframe.  That is going to mainly depend on the Chicago area and whether it continues to lose population.  Obviously it's too early to make predictions as far that goes, but one possible path for Chicago's future is to follow in the footsteps of St Louis, in which case IL is certainly going to become a swing state again, it's just a matter of when.  Or Chicago could end up more like Minneapolis.  We'll see.

One other thing that's almost certain to happen is MS will flip by the 2040s, maybe earlier.  This has mainly to do with demographic change, which I won't go into right now since NC Yankee has already posted a lot of good stuff on this in another thread (which I'm too lazy to find at the moment).  I haven't done the math yet, but it's possible some other Deep South states will see the same dynamic, such as LA.
Logged
AN63093
63093
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 886


Political Matrix
E: 0.06, S: 2.17

« Reply #1 on: August 13, 2019, 10:21:34 am »
« Edited: August 13, 2019, 10:35:44 am by AN63093 »

Yes, you are correct, assuming you plot a straight line- but that is what I am precisely not assuming.  In other words, I think, particularly in this case, that we can't assume present demographic trends hold.  The reason is because if you look at Rust Belt cities, e.g., Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, etc., you'll notice that they all follow a somewhat similar pattern in terms of population decline.  It starts off relatively small (maybe around -5%), but then it passes some critical point, where a vicious circle begins, the rate of decline starts increasing (up to the -20% range), and there is this mass exodus until the city stabilizes at a much smaller size.  In some cases, the decline is still ongoing (such as Detroit, which has lost over 60% of its population from a peak at around 1.85 million).  In other cases like Cleveland and Buffalo, they have started to plateau, but only after losing about 60% of their population (which is also about how much Detroit and St Louis has lost- we will see how much further they have to go).  

Now contrast to a city like Minneapolis, which has gone down a completely different path.  It appeared as if it was heading down the same route, and lost about 30% of its population in the 70s (like many other US cities), but the difference is, for whatever reason (I'm not going to address what it could be in this post), it turned things around and is now growing at >10%, such that it will be rebound to where it was in the 70s by the next census.

So what is the difference?  Well, I'm not exactly sure (I do think that Minneapolis is a much better run city than Chicago), but whatever it is- there does appear to be a critical point where the vicious circle kicks in- maybe one major industry leaves, then some people leave, which causes property values to go down, which causes property tax revenue to go down, which causes schools to decrease in quality, which causes the city to increase taxes to make up the shortfall, which causes more people to leave, which makes more industries want to leave to chase talent, and so on and so forth.  For any given city, there is a critical point where the floodgates will open- Minneapolis was able to turn things around before that point, Cleveland and St Louis were not.  

So what category is Chicago in?  I'm not sure, but I do think that the next 20-30 years will be very important for it and it is at high risk of passing that hypothetical "critical point" in the relatively near future.  And if it does, it's quite possible the decline will be rapid and perhaps irreversible.  At some point it looked like Chicago was going to weather this storm since it actually gained population in 2000, but then it declined again in 2010.  A better example of a large city that is stable is NYC, which had a drop in the 80s (again, like many other cities), but since then is consistently hitting a small % of growth- enough to keep it above 8 million.

I don't think the mere fact that Chicago is large will be enough to save it (although it helps).  Keep in mind that cities come and go (with the exception of NY, which has been #1 in the census every year since they started it)- many people do not realize this, but St Louis was once the 4th largest city in the US, Cleveland was in the top 10 for almost the entire 20th century, peaking at #5 (and only dropped out in the 80s), Detroit was the 4th largest city in the US for over 30 years, etc.  Heck, Buffalo was once in the top 10 (how many people reading this thread knew that?).  

It won't happen this census, but by next census, Houston is actually on track to pass Chicago as the third largest city.  Now I don't have a crystal ball, so who knows what will happen.  But right now, for reasons I'm not going to get into at the moment, I think there are indicators that Chicago is not going to stabilize in the way that NYC has, and certainly not turn things completely around like Minneapolis.  But who knows, maybe it will.  If it does, then yes- you are right, IL will stay D for the foreseeable future.  I do think the next couple decades will be critical for Chicago's future- we'll see what happens.
Logged
AN63093
63093
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 886


Political Matrix
E: 0.06, S: 2.17

« Reply #2 on: August 13, 2019, 10:56:30 am »

Technically yes, but it's negligible (I think <0.5%), and may not even be that by the next census.  Still significantly below the national average.  Also, you have to look at the bigger picture.  If it was just the city that'd be one thing, but the surrounding area is shrinking as well.  Cook County is on track to lose population, the greater Chicago MSA (if it's lucky) will have a tiny bit of growth by the next census (<0.5%), Will County, which had some of the highest amount of growth in the area, is projected to hit almost no growth (this is after growing at >30% for several decades straight).  Same story in DuPage, same story in Lake County (it's actually conceivable that Lake loses population).. which I think is actually pretty important, because it means that this isn't just a case of white flight or whatever, it means that the affluent are no longer moving to the area either.. this indicates that the "elites" no longer see the Chicago area as a fashionable or desirable place to live, which will have a "trickle down" effect (ugh, I know, but I couldn't think of a better term).

This is all going to compound on itself and like I said, it will sneak up on people (and it won't be obvious until it's already well under way), but this means there is a high risk that the "critical point" I discussed above will be passed at some point in the next 20 years, and if does, I'm not sure that it's reversible.

New construction downtown is not particularly indicative of anything, I don't think.  Lakefront property around the Gold Coast, Near North Side, etc., is always going to be desirable.  Even in downtown Detroit you still have new development downtown and expensive condos going up, etc.  That's not really where you want to look for indicators of larger trends.
Logged
AN63093
63093
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 886


Political Matrix
E: 0.06, S: 2.17

« Reply #3 on: August 14, 2019, 11:26:05 am »

Superb post, NC Yankee.

Anyways (to tie this back to the thread topic), I think MB's map above serves as a generally good baseline/template to work off of, and then some minor changes can be made here and there.

One big one is what ends up happening in the Deep South, which you covered in great detail above and I don't have much to add except to say, once again, excellent analysis.

Another one is what the next few decades look like for Chicagoland, which I went into above, probably in more detail than anyone cares to read. Wink

One last one I mentioned, which I won't get into too deep right now, is that I don't know that NJ is going to follow the trend in New England.. and I have several reasons for that, but the main one is that I think NJ is actually poised to become a high growth state, particularly from more diverse millennial families that are leaving the city.  The millennials -> inner city trend is beginning to reverse back to suburbanization (many millennials will refuse to believe this, of course, but people are already writing about this and the data is out there), and NJ is pretty well positioned to benefit from it.  It had lackluster growth over the past ~40 years in many areas (or even a decline) due to- first, general decline in the Northeast, then second, retirees fleeing the area (mostly to FL) and then third, millennials leaving the suburbs for city living in the early 00s.  There are plenty of signs this is already beginning to reverse if you look at Union County, Essex County, etc.

So, interestingly, I think the map of the future may be something that we've never really seen in US history, although it would bear some resemblance to some of the maps of the late 1800s (obviously the coalitions would be very different).  I suspect the West Coast through the Southwest to TX will be the Dems strongest area from about the mid-21st century on.  The GOP's strongest area will be the plains and Midwest, much like it was throughout US history, with the caveat that we have to see what happens in the Chicago area.  The biggest battlegrounds will be the South and New England, with both parties having strength in different states in each- for the Dems, portions of the Deep South and Atlanta.. for the GOP, the interior South and some coastal areas (the Carolinas particularly).  The Dems will continue to be strong in MA and essentially the entire Mid-Atlantic (from VA/MD, up through NJ/NY, which will be another Dem "core" area), where the rest of New England will be either lean R or be strong R (e.g., ME).  

The map below is pretty close to what I posted a couple years ago in this thread, which is still generally where I think things are headed.  The only updates I've made to it are: a) I'm no longer sold on IL being D due to Chicago's decline and b) after doing some more demographic research, I think more Deep South states will have to be D.


Logged
AN63093
63093
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 886


Political Matrix
E: 0.06, S: 2.17

« Reply #4 on: August 14, 2019, 02:25:28 pm »
« Edited: August 14, 2019, 02:39:45 pm by AN63093 »

ESL- I like those maps; can't say I disagree with a whole lot.  Just a few things- I think even in a strong D victory, I wonder if MI will be winnable in 20 years.  I think it just depends on what happens in the Detroit area and if it continues to lose population.. if so, it's not inconceivable that it starts voting a lot more like IA or OH.  SC is another one- it'll be interesting to see what happens there because SC is one of the places where you actually see a high conservative influx (i.e., the Greenville area, which is growing at >10% and in large part is trending R).

Likewise, I do like your R win scenarios, though I have my little quibbles here and there (e.g., GA in 20 years could be one of the last states to vote R, even in a landslide situation.. I could see it staying D before even states like OR).  And I cannot conceive of a scenario like your second link where NC flips D before GA (again, this is in the future, not today).

As far as VT goes, well, you have to keep in mind that my map is LONG term.. i.e., I'm not making these predictions for 2020, or 2024, or even 2028.  I'm considering what may be happening once the baby boomer generation has almost ceased to exist and millennials are mostly in middle age, gen X is in retirement etc.

The reason why I think VT will flip (although it will still be close for a long time and probably won't be solid R in my lifetime) is simple- it has almost nothing in common with any of the demographics that are forming the Dems' core/future base.  VT is mostly older, rural, and just barely growing- we're talking like 0.1% (it is nearly last in the US).  It is the second whitest state in the country after ME (over 90%).  It is the third oldest (after ME and NH).  Honestly, if I went up to a random person and just told them to guess the state based on demographics without saying the name, you'd probably get answers like WV or ND or something.. no one would think, oh wait, that's VT.

The reason a lot of millennials will have trouble fathoming this, is because many of them grew up in the 90s and started voting (or at least "paying attention" to politics) in the 00s or Bush years.  So they associate the GOP with what were some of the strongest elements in the party at the time, which includes, e.g., Southern Evangelicals.  Given that, some have difficulty seeing how a state like VT would ever vote for the party of Southern Baptists etc., without stopping to wonder what would happen if the GOP was no longer associated with either Baptists or the South, and in fact, if it was now the Democrats who were winning most of the South.  That is a scenario that a lot of current millennials will be cognitively incapable of envisioning, even though it is actually underway- TX, GA, NC- all trending D.  Meanwhile VT (every county but 1), RI, NH, CT, ME- all trending R.  

And of course, people being born now and that will vote in 2040 will have none of the associations that millennials currently have with the GOP.  Something that is difficult to accept but is nonetheless true (and it's forgivable, people have a tendency to believe everything revolves around their own experiences, but in fact, the world does move on).  We see this already happening with the GOP, having nominated its least religious candidate since I can remember, and where the Religious Right had minimal (basically no) impact on the primary or general election, and is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the base.

Remember- maps change.  In 20 years, there will be states voting R that no one today is guessing.  20 years ago, KY, WV, AR, TN- all D states.  Maps that purport to predict the future but don't flip enough states are bad maps.
Logged
AN63093
63093
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 886


Political Matrix
E: 0.06, S: 2.17

« Reply #5 on: August 15, 2019, 12:42:51 pm »

The reason a lot of millennials will have trouble fathoming this, is because many of them grew up in the 90s and started voting (or at least "paying attention" to politics) in the 00s or Bush years.  So they associate the GOP with what were some of the strongest elements in the party at the time, which includes, e.g., Southern Evangelicals.  Given that, some have difficulty seeing how a state like VT would ever vote for the party of Southern Baptists etc., without stopping to wonder what would happen if the GOP was no longer associated with either Baptists or the South, and in fact, if it was now the Democrats who were winning most of the South.  That is a scenario that a lot of current millennials will be cognitively incapable of envisioning, even though it is actually underway- TX, GA, NC- all trending D.  Meanwhile VT (every county but 1), RI, NH, CT, ME- all trending R.  

And of course, people being born now and that will vote in 2040 will have none of the associations that millennials currently have with the GOP.  Something that is difficult to accept but is nonetheless true (and it's forgivable, people have a tendency to believe everything revolves around their own experiences, but in fact, the world does move on).  We see this already happening with the GOP, having nominated its least religious candidate since I can remember, and where the Religious Right had minimal (basically no) impact on the primary or general election, and is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the base.

Remember- maps change.  In 20 years, there will be states voting R that no one today is guessing.  20 years ago, KY, WV, AR, TN- all D states.  Maps that purport to predict the future but don't flip enough states are bad maps.

Call me crazy, I think this reasoning could be applied to the northwest, too. If we have a populist GOP, Oregon would go first. If the GOP shifts back to its late 19th century character- coalition built on the well-to-do neoliberals fleeing more conservative minorities and/or progressives in the Democratic Party- this could actually happen to Washington first.

I thought about that as well, and I go back and forth on it.  The reason why I think the pacific NW will be distinct is because even though some areas share characteristics of places like New England, there are two large metro areas (in Portland and Seattle) that are two of the top MSAs in the US in growth (particularly Seattle, which is hitting >15%) and this growth consists of mostly demographics that are D leaning to strong D (such as white progressives, etc.).  There isn't a single metro area in the Northeast that shares those characteristics, except to some extent Boston (which is why I think MA will stay D even if New England largely does not).
Logged
AN63093
63093
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 886


Political Matrix
E: 0.06, S: 2.17

« Reply #6 on: August 15, 2019, 01:10:30 pm »

The reason a lot of millennials will have trouble fathoming this, is because many of them grew up in the 90s and started voting (or at least "paying attention" to politics) in the 00s or Bush years.  So they associate the GOP with what were some of the strongest elements in the party at the time, which includes, e.g., Southern Evangelicals.  Given that, some have difficulty seeing how a state like VT would ever vote for the party of Southern Baptists etc., without stopping to wonder what would happen if the GOP was no longer associated with either Baptists or the South, and in fact, if it was now the Democrats who were winning most of the South.  That is a scenario that a lot of current millennials will be cognitively incapable of envisioning, even though it is actually underway- TX, GA, NC- all trending D.  Meanwhile VT (every county but 1), RI, NH, CT, ME- all trending R.  

And of course, people being born now and that will vote in 2040 will have none of the associations that millennials currently have with the GOP.  Something that is difficult to accept but is nonetheless true (and it's forgivable, people have a tendency to believe everything revolves around their own experiences, but in fact, the world does move on).  We see this already happening with the GOP, having nominated its least religious candidate since I can remember, and where the Religious Right had minimal (basically no) impact on the primary or general election, and is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the base.

Remember- maps change.  In 20 years, there will be states voting R that no one today is guessing.  20 years ago, KY, WV, AR, TN- all D states.  Maps that purport to predict the future but don't flip enough states are bad maps.

Call me crazy, I think this reasoning could be applied to the northwest, too. If we have a populist GOP, Oregon would go first. If the GOP shifts back to its late 19th century character- coalition built on the well-to-do neoliberals fleeing more conservative minorities and/or progressives in the Democratic Party- this could actually happen to Washington first.
Hell no. A couple of hippies doesn't change the fact that Oregon is (and is only getting moreso) metropolitain and international. Also, I don't get how Connecticut is supposed to go Republican. I think the corridor from Hartford to New Haven to Fairfield County will keep it blue for a long time.

In regards to Chicago population trends, it's pretty clear it isn't following the rest of the rustbelt. The Tribune (I think) did a piece on it recently, and basically every single neighborhood in the city with the exception of the Far South Side is growing--to a pretty rapid extent. The Far South Side is absolutely bleeding, but it's bottomed out and will eventually gentrify. Meanwhile, the rest of the city is booming and is poised to follow a New Yorkesque trend over the next decade which will easily cancel out the shrinking on the Far South Side. Chicago is pretty clearly a cosmopolitain agglomeration which is going to have a lot of relevance in the 21st century, and it's economic base, construction, and relevance to the global economy clearly shows signs of it having more in common with coastal metropolises than the surrounding Rust Belt.

Do you have a link for this article?  If you are describing it accurately, then I question the methodology, since every figure I listed above indicates that Chicago is not about to enter a period of high growth.  If so, perhaps you can enlighten me as to why every county in the MSA is shrinking or stagnant, including Lake County, DuPage etc., (so neither the inner city, nor the suburbs- regardless of socioeconomic level, are growing), and why the Chicago MSA is only hitting 0.4% growth (contrast to, say, Houston, which is at an eye-popping 18%).  I think it's pretty obvious which one of these is going to end up having more relevance in the 21st century.  In fact, the Chicago MSA is the slowest growing metro in the entire top 20, one of the slowest in the top 50 even.. only 4 others are slower- Pittsburgh (shrinking at 1.34%), Buffalo (shrinking at 0.47%), Hartford (shrinking at 0.5%) and Cleveland (shrinking at 0.97%).

Your post has a lot of irrelevant fluff in it (like, e.g., Chicago will continue to be a "cosmopolitain agglomeration".. um, I wasn't arguing that Chicago won't be cosmopolitan?... also you spelled cosmopolitan wrong).  If we're attempting to project demographic trends of an urban area, I think I'm going to go ahead and stick with the data and numbers over your pontificating.  But if you actually have any numbers to present, I'd be happy to re-assess my position.
Logged
AN63093
63093
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 886


Political Matrix
E: 0.06, S: 2.17

« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2019, 11:14:04 am »

On paragraph 2, people need to stop pretending Illinois will be the GOP savior in answer to demographics flipping Texas to the Democrats. Right now Texas is simply voting more demographically in line to what it was before! And have you seen the types of people moving to Texas? They are largely conservative! The Democratic lock out in Texas will be over if it not already over but you could argue that maybe, just maybe, Texas was inflatedly Republican.

Also I would not bet on a state that will have 15 to 16 electoral votes to be the savior of the GOP. Long term it will probably bump up to 20 again when climate change takes toll of course. But the GOP is better off investing in Texas than Illinois.


Who are these "people" who are claiming that IL will be the GOP's "savior?"  I just flipped back through this thread and no one said that.

What was being argued, was that if current demographic trends continue, there will come a time in a couple decades where the GOP will find it easier to win IL than states like TX and GA.  And that is a completely reasonable projection.

No one in this thread has said this is necessarily good for the GOP, much less the "savior," so I'm not sure why you imagined it.  All things considered, I suspect most Republicans would rather have TX, especially given that it has the fastest growing metros in the US, and IL is shrinking.
Logged
AN63093
63093
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 886


Political Matrix
E: 0.06, S: 2.17

« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2019, 02:40:03 pm »
« Edited: August 19, 2019, 02:44:16 pm by AN63093 »

OSR, one thing you're assuming is that EV distribution will remain on current trend lines.  In other words that areas growing now will continue to at the same rate, that the sunbelt will continue growing uniformly, and so on.  I think that instead, you have to look at growth areas one by one, and on a case by case basis.

I think some places, like TX, GA, NC and CO will continue to grow at high rates (at least for the next couple decades), but things could rapidly change.  Take, for example, CA.  CA had two significant periods of growth- one in the early 20th century, and then another post WW2 period that peaked in the 60s and stayed strong through the 80s, but then began decreasing.  The growth has actually slowed in CA now.. obviously, it is not shrinking or anything like that.  But that being said, the days of CA hitting >10% appear to be behind it and it's not among the growth leaders in the country anymore.. it's projected to hit about the US average on the next census.

The growth in CA is mainly centered around the Bay Area currently (compare to, e.g., the LA metro), and how sustainable this is (and for how long, particularly as millennials age and start wanting to begin families, buy houses etc) is a fair question IMO.  Keep in mind that the Bay Area is largely anchored by Silicon Valley- but the country's center for tech innovation can (and has) changed over time.  For much of the 20th century, it was mostly centered in the Northeast, and Silicon Valley didn't really begin to displace it until the 1970s.  It is certainly conceivable that it could shift again, say to TX maybe? (to some degree, that has already begun).

And take other states- like how much longer do we expect the growth in AZ and FL to continue if its largely driven by retirees?  Also consider NY- does it make sense for the GOP to start thinking about how to win it, if its among the slowest growing states in the US (even below MI), such that at some point, if trends don't reverse, it will basically just be the city and that's it?

A CA that is stagnant for the next 20-30 years has fairly profound implications for the EC, especially if other states are regularly hitting >10-15% in its place.  What looks like a disadvantage now, may not in a few decades if the EC has changed.  Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that CA is going to suddenly transform into the rust belt or something, but what I am suggesting is that when we make projections, we can't just look at population trends and assume they're uniform across the country, and have to also question assumptions about how the EVs will be allocated.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
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