States that you don't see going R or D in the next 2 decades?

[iceman]

Which states do you think that you won't see going R or D in the next 2 decades?

I think:

Not going R - Maryland, Hawaii, California, Illinois

Not going D - Wyoming, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas

[Redban]

Presidential elections? New York, Massachusetts. Though they’ll vote Republican for mayors and governors. There’s also D.C.

I wouldn’t go so far with Hawaii. Bush in 2004 gave a half-hearted attempt at the state, sending Dick Cheney there once. Obama, the favorite son, drew up big margins. But still, it’s a small state that wouldn’t need much to swing.

Illinois and California weren’t that far out of reach, pre-Obama 2008. 2 decades doesn’t rule out the possibility of flipping.

[dw93]

For the Presidency:

Not Going D: Wyoming, West Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Dakota, South Dakota, Ohio
Not Going R: California, New York, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Washington State


Illinois saw the largest population decline after New Jersey. The more people leave it, as is the case with the rest of the Rust Belt, the redder it gets. It won't go solid red, but it'll be a swing state. I expect it to go Republican at least once between 2036 and 2044 after peaking this year or 2024.

[iceman]

For the Presidency:

Not Going D: Wyoming, West Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Dakota, South Dakota, Ohio

why do you think Ohio won't flip anytime in 2 decades? I think it's much more elastic than the other swing states.

[iceman]

I do think that Minnesota would remain a white whale for the GOP in the presidential elections for decades to come. The rural counties in Minnesota just cannot offset the votes from the very left leaning Minneapolis-St Paul area.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I don't see any landslides in the next 5 elections and don't believe in #trends continuing indefinitely, so, maybe something like this, give or take Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina, and Ohio:

[iceman]

I don't see any landslides in the next 5 elections and don't believe in #trends continuing indefinitely, so, maybe something like this, give or take Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina, and Ohio:

Why do you think North Carolina is much more stable R than Georgia?

[morgankingsley]

Massachusetts will not go Republican and Wyoming will not go Democrat. I could actually see California or New York flipping in landslide conditions but not Massachusetts

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I don't see any landslides in the next 5 elections and don't believe in #trends continuing indefinitely, so, maybe something like this, give or take Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina, and Ohio:

Why do you think North Carolina is much more stable R than Georgia?

I don't know if I would say much, but I am more confident about NC long term.  If we look more broadly (not just 2016 trends), NC has been consistently R+3 for a long time.  Plus, 2016 exit polling showed that recent transplants to NC are actually quite Republican (probably largely retirees), while I doubt the same would be true of Georgia.

Because Obama won North Carolina narrowly in a semi-landslide in 2018, people have over-estimated how competitive the state is ever since then.

For the medium-term, I'm more confident about North Carolina than Georgia, but more confident about Georgia than Arizona.

[Gracile]

For the Presidency:

Not Going D: Wyoming, West Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Dakota, South Dakota, Ohio
Not Going R: California, New York, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Washington State


Illinois saw the largest population decline after New Jersey. The more people leave it, as is the case with the rest of the Rust Belt, the redder it gets. It won't go solid red, but it'll be a swing state. I expect it to go Republican at least once between 2036 and 2044 after peaking this year or 2024.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on IL, since much of the population loss has happened in conservative areas downstate while Chicagoland has held up fairly well over the last decade. It's hard to see Republicans winning Illinois in the near future unless they make major inroads with the kind of voters they've alienated in the most voter-rich corner of the state.

[😥]

[Redban]

Massachusetts will not go Republican and Wyoming will not go Democrat. I could actually see California or New York flipping in landslide conditions but not Massachusetts

California? Yeah, in a big landslide in the GOP’s favor, it definitely could. Bush in early-2000 even considered putting resources here (he lost here by about 12%, which is relatively good). It has a long history of being a GOP state before 1992.

But New York?

NYC is just too big and too left wing. Even when the Republicans won here (sans 1972), it was by getting 30-35% in NYC and then killing it everywhere else, like in Long Island, Westchester, & Upstate. But now, they lose NYC by an 80% clip and they struggle to get 40% in Long Island and Westchester. While they still can win upstate, the population there has been dropping each year (while NYC is still growing a lot). Upstate can’t overcome the deficit from NYC. There are about twice as many registered Democrats in the state.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I don't see any landslides in the next 5 elections and don't believe in #trends continuing indefinitely, so, maybe something like this, give or take Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina, and Ohio:

That map looks way way to stable for a two decades time.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Though if Trump loses in 2020 and wins TX and the GOP adapt over the next 4-8 years I could see Texas GOP streak going for the next two decades though thats a huge if.


MS is too small for Republicans too care to adapt too so Demographics will cause the state to go blue by the 2030s. 

[MT Treasurer]

Two decades is a very long time, so I’m not even 100% confident about some of the red/blue states on my map, but this would be my prediction:

[Skill and Chance]

Surprised no one has NY as flippable by 2040.  Upstate eventually voting like West Texas/reverse Bronx is not a crazy scenario.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I don't see any landslides in the next 5 elections and don't believe in #trends continuing indefinitely, so, maybe something like this, give or take Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina, and Ohio:

That map looks way way to stable for a two decades time.

I disagree.  20 years is 5 elections.  This would be the results for the last 5 elections, since 2000:

[OSR stands with Israel]

I don't see any landslides in the next 5 elections and don't believe in #trends continuing indefinitely, so, maybe something like this, give or take Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina, and Ohio:

That map looks way way to stable for a two decades time.

I disagree.  20 years is 5 elections.  This would be the results for the last 5 elections, since 2000:

Yes but that would mean things in your map would pretty much stay similar for 40 years .

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I don't see any landslides in the next 5 elections and don't believe in #trends continuing indefinitely, so, maybe something like this, give or take Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina, and Ohio:

That map looks way way to stable for a two decades time.

I disagree.  20 years is 5 elections.  This would be the results for the last 5 elections, since 2000:

Yes but that would mean things in your map would pretty much stay similar for 40 years .

I know it's not popular on Atlas, but I don't see some realignment on the horizon.

[Roll Roons]

I don't see any landslides in the next 5 elections and don't believe in #trends continuing indefinitely, so, maybe something like this, give or take Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina, and Ohio:

That map looks way way to stable for a two decades time.

I disagree.  20 years is 5 elections.  This would be the results for the last 5 elections, since 2000:

The 2000 to 2020 electoral map may look fairly stable, but go back one more election and you have KY, TN, LA, AR, WV and MO going for Clinton.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I don't see any landslides in the next 5 elections and don't believe in #trends continuing indefinitely, so, maybe something like this, give or take Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina, and Ohio:

That map looks way way to stable for a two decades time.

I disagree.  20 years is 5 elections.  This would be the results for the last 5 elections, since 2000:

Yes but that would mean things in your map would pretty much stay similar for 40 years .

I know it's not popular on Atlas, but I don't see some realignment on the horizon.

There is no way the current party system can stay stable for the next 12 years. The reason why Trends dont equal destiny isnt cause they just stop but because parties adapt and that adaptation changes the map as well .

[Agonized-Statism]

Eh.

[538Electoral]

States that likely won't go D/R for the next 2 decades in my opinion.

Probably not going R

CA
OR
WA
IL
NY
VT
MA
CT
DE
MD
DC

States not likely to go D

ID
MT
WY
ND
SD
4/5 NE
KS
OK
LA
AR
MO
IA
IN
OH
KY
WV
TN
AL
ME-02

[Redban]

Surprised no one has NY as flippable by 2040.  Upstate eventually voting like West Texas/reverse Bronx is not a crazy scenario.

Too many Democratic spots upstate -- Albany, Troy, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, etc. An 80% margin is a stretch. Furthermore, Upstate NY is losing population each year while NYC continues to grow.

Right now, the GOP gets 50/50 in Upstate NY in a good year. If upstate trends far right and they start to pull 65%-70% upstate, they might get a max net gain of 1.5 million (750,000 GOP gain, 750,000 Dems loss). The GOP loses NYC by 2 million most elections. So that still leaves a deficit of about a half-million votes or so.

Basically, the GOP won't be able to contest New York State unless they also start winning the suburbs in NY. That means Long Island and Westchester. Republicans are losing these places 65-35%.

When Reagan won NY in the 1980s, he did so by:

1). Holding down the NYC deficit to 60% (instead of the ridiculous 75-80% right now)
2). Winning upstate by 2-10% points (i.e. - slightly)
3). Winning Westchester & Long Island by about 20% (i.e. - blowout). These areas gave him about 300,000 - 400,000 votes over Carter in 1980.

Westchester & Long Island are the key, not Upstate. And these areas are trending Democrat right  now.

[Catalyst138]

Not going R -

California - it could trend R eventually but it's too far gone even with trends
New York - as long as the City controls its politics, it's not going R
Virginia - It just gets bluer and bluer by the second, and the D- trending areas are growing the fastest
Hawaii - too diverse to vote for a Republican.
Maryland: lots of black people and urban population, greatly D- friendly
Vermont: will always be a progressive bastion, regardless of demographics
Massachusetts: really no indication of it going anywhere, the Dems consistently win every county
DC- obviously will stay Democratic until the end of time.

Not going D-

Wyoming - do I really need to explain?
West Virginia - way too far gone at this point
Utah - until Mormons start being liberal, this will stay Republican
Oklahoma: even with growth in OKC I don't see a flip happening
Alabama: black turnout will never be large enough to overcome the conservative whites. Doug Jones was a fluke
Arkansas: similar to Alabama, only with even more conservative whites and less black people
Tenessee: if even Breseden couldn't flip it in a wave year, no one can
Nebraska: similar to Wyoming it's just too rural, and Omaha will never be big enough to counteract that
Idaho: a combination of Mormons + too rural