Illinois = future purple state?

[Redban]

The following states are losing population -- New York, Illinois, West Virginia, Louisiana, Connecticut, Mississippi, Hawaii, New Jersey, Alaska, and Vermont.

Of all those states, the one that catches my eye would be Illinois, the state that has lost more people than any other state in the United States since 2010.

In 2014, Chicago had 2.727 million. In 2019, it was around 2.705 million. So a drop of 22,000.

In 2014, Chicago's metro area had 9,564,614 people. In 2019, it was around 9,472,676. Drop of around 92,938.

In 2014, Illinois had 12,890,000. In 2019, it's around 12,659,682. Drop of around 230, 318.


As we know, the reason Illinois is a Democrat state is that Chicago votes overwhelming Democrat, offsetting the Republican votes in the other counties. Would Chicago's population loss support the possibility that the state could trend purple in 2028, 2032, or 2036?

I'll address some counter-arguments:

1). The rest of the state outside Chicago has lost population too, so whatever votes the Democrats lose in Chicago might be negated by the whatever votes the Republicans lose outside Chicago?

But most of the population loss is coming from migration out, not deaths. And people who move do tend to be younger and more liberal, no? So it's possible that the Republican voters stayed while the Democrat voters left.

Indeed, a lot of the population decline in Chicago is coming from the departure of African-Americans. In 2010, there were 872,286 blacks in Chicago. In 2017, there was around 797,253. In comparison, the white population went from 854,717 to 892,334 while the Hispanic population went from 778,862 to 787,978. (Admittedly, some blacks simply left Chicago for the state's suburbs, but a lot of them did leave for other states)

2). But Democrats have won by big margins in 2008, 2012, and 2016?

Yes, but Obama might have fueled a favorite son effect. Before Obama, Illinois wasn't so Democrat -- Bush lost the state by "only" 10% or thereabouts in 2000 and 2004.

In addition, not all purple states display it's purple-ness in a smaller margin of victory. West Virginia in 1996 was considered a Democrat stronghold, voting Democrat by about 15%. Then the Republicans put resources into the state and revealed it's purpleness. The same story goes for Virginia before 2008.

Lastly --Illinois's population decline accompanies stories of increased crime, poor economy, poor education, lower standards of living, etc. Those factors create an environment ripe for a change of party affiliation.

[RINO Tom]

RE: #1, unfortunately no.  I think most migrants are one of two groups:

1. Poor minorities from the south and west stretches of the Chicago area.  A lot of them might not have even voted.

2. Republicans (usually wealthy and likely to vote) who have had it and move to a state like Indiana.

Anecdota, of course.

[Roronoa D. Law]

Most of the people leaving the Chicago area are white lower to middle-class Republicans. RINO Tom is right in that they are moving to places like Milwaukee and Indianapolis. We have the same deal in Atlanta where many Republicans are moving to Charlotte and Nashville because they are dissatisfied with the whole individualistic, rat race, and Keeping up with Joneses attitude that comes with living in a major metropolis.

[RINO Tom]

^ Not sure where you get they’re not upper class, but otherwise agreed...

[jamestroll]

It is very difficult to predict how states will trend in the future. A more populist than even Trump's 2016 coalition would landslide in the Midwest but would not have much appeal where 65% of Illinoisans live.

It seems that the generic D vs R in Illinois is right now D+15 in a statewide election but the Democrats have some surprising life downstate and the GOP was not entirely wiped out and even held a couple of open seat elections in suburban Chicago which did not happen in similar suburbs elsewhere.

But the present demographics do not a support a GOP trend.

[Suburbia]

It is very difficult to predict how states will trend in the future. A more populist than even Trump's 2016 coalition would landslide in the Midwest but would not have much appeal where 65% of Illinoisans live.

It seems that the generic D vs R in Illinois is right now D+15 in a statewide election but the Democrats have some surprising life downstate and the GOP was not entirely wiped out and even held a couple of open seat elections in suburban Chicago which did not happen in similar suburbs elsewhere.

But the present demographics do not a support a GOP trend.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No, IA, MO are leading R states, but PA, OH, MI, IL, WI and VA are leading D

[Redban]

No, IA, MO are leading R states, but PA, OH, MI, IL, WI and VA are leading D

Right now, yes. But this topic isn’t about right now. It’s about future elections, trends. Chicago’s metro area lost nearly 100,000 people from 2014 to 2019. If that trend continues - if Chicago’s metro area loses nearly 200,000 people from 2020-2028 - couldn’t that put the state back in play in the 2028 or 2032 election?

The Midwest and Northeast, in general, are the areas that are losing people.  And Illinois is leading the pack by a lot. So Chicago is likely to continue losing people; the population decline is unlikely to reverse. This population decline will have no effect, according to you?

[Agonized-Statism]

You would need Republicans to drive up margins with all white voters. A combination of the current trends with WWC and a big comeback in the suburbs, plus the decline of Chicago, might do it.

[pikachu]

No, IA, MO are leading R states, but PA, OH, MI, IL, WI and VA are leading D

Right now, yes. But this topic isn’t about right now. It’s about future elections, trends. Chicago’s metro area lost nearly 100,000 people from 2014 to 2019. If that trend continues - if Chicago’s metro area loses nearly 200,000 people from 2020-2028 - couldn’t that put the state back in play in the 2028 or 2032 election?

The Midwest and Northeast, in general, are the areas that are losing people.  And Illinois is leading the pack by a lot. So Chicago is likely to continue losing people; the population decline is unlikely to reverse. This population decline will have no effect, according to you?

I don't get why you're so presumptive that the population decline will continue in the long term. Compared to other Midwestern cities like Detroit and Cleveland, Chicago's gotten along better over the last 30 years and still has a pretty vibrant economy. If the city manages to do something about crime and increase quality of life for its minority citizens, then it has a lot of the bones which are needed for it to reverse its population decline. It's not like its Rust Belt city which had its economic base abandon it and is mostly urban blight; it's still a major hub for a bunch of industries and has a lot of aspects which make it desirable to live in.

[jamestroll]

Did they find oil in one of those hick towns in Illinois that someone just slipped under my radar?

Why do people seem to ignore that downstate Illinois has lost population at a quicker rate compared to Chicagoland?

Though in others defense the GOP was not exactly eradicated in the Chicagoland suburbs in 2018 either.

[Redban]

No, IA, MO are leading R states, but PA, OH, MI, IL, WI and VA are leading D

Right now, yes. But this topic isn’t about right now. It’s about future elections, trends. Chicago’s metro area lost nearly 100,000 people from 2014 to 2019. If that trend continues - if Chicago’s metro area loses nearly 200,000 people from 2020-2028 - couldn’t that put the state back in play in the 2028 or 2032 election?

The Midwest and Northeast, in general, are the areas that are losing people.  And Illinois is leading the pack by a lot. So Chicago is likely to continue losing people; the population decline is unlikely to reverse. This population decline will have no effect, according to you?

I don't get why you're so presumptive that the population decline will continue in the long term. Compared to other Midwestern cities like Detroit and Cleveland, Chicago's gotten along better over the last 30 years and still has a pretty vibrant economy. If the city manages to do something about crime and increase quality of life for its minority citizens, then it has a lot of the bones which are needed for it to reverse its population decline. It's not like its Rust Belt city which had its economic base abandon it and is mostly urban blight; it's still a major hub for a bunch of industries and has a lot of aspects which make it desirable to live in.

1st sentence — not presumptuous. Cities don’t ever come back from this sort of big population decline (New York City after the 1970s decline is the only one to do it).

They might have years where the population decline slows or even gains slightly (Chicago did gain people in the earlier part of the 2010s). But in the long run, cities don’t ever return from the population decline.

Most demographic analysts say that, in the foreseeable future, the Sun Belt is the area to which most people will migrate. The Northeast and Midwest are going to continue losing people.

[RINO Tom]

Did they find oil in one of those hick towns in Illinois that someone just slipped under my radar?

Why do people seem to ignore that downstate Illinois has lost population at a quicker rate compared to Chicagoland?

Though in others defense the GOP was not exactly eradicated in the Chicagoland suburbs in 2018 either.

It’s so annoying when ignorant people (like you) know NOTHING about Downstate Illinois and prove it in the form of hurtful, judgmental and baseless comments like this.

[Nyvin]

The Dem part of Illinois isn't just Chicago anymore.    You also have to include the rest of Cook county, along with Dupage, Lake, Will, Kane, and Kendall.   There's also some downstate areas that Dems are doing really good in like Mclean and Champaign.

Those areas cover the vast majority of the growing parts of Illinois.

[pikachu]

No, IA, MO are leading R states, but PA, OH, MI, IL, WI and VA are leading D

Right now, yes. But this topic isn’t about right now. It’s about future elections, trends. Chicago’s metro area lost nearly 100,000 people from 2014 to 2019. If that trend continues - if Chicago’s metro area loses nearly 200,000 people from 2020-2028 - couldn’t that put the state back in play in the 2028 or 2032 election?

The Midwest and Northeast, in general, are the areas that are losing people.  And Illinois is leading the pack by a lot. So Chicago is likely to continue losing people; the population decline is unlikely to reverse. This population decline will have no effect, according to you?

I don't get why you're so presumptive that the population decline will continue in the long term. Compared to other Midwestern cities like Detroit and Cleveland, Chicago's gotten along better over the last 30 years and still has a pretty vibrant economy. If the city manages to do something about crime and increase quality of life for its minority citizens, then it has a lot of the bones which are needed for it to reverse its population decline. It's not like its Rust Belt city which had its economic base abandon it and is mostly urban blight; it's still a major hub for a bunch of industries and has a lot of aspects which make it desirable to live in.

1st sentence — not presumptuous. Cities don’t ever come back from this sort of big population decline (New York City after the 1970s decline is the only one to do it).

They might have years where the population decline slows or even gains slightly (Chicago did gain people in the earlier part of the 2010s). But in the long run, cities don’t ever return from the population decline.

Most demographic analysts say that, in the foreseeable future, the Sun Belt is the area to which most people will migrate. The Northeast and Midwest are going to continue losing people.

And San Francisco. And Seattle. And Minneapolis. And Boston. And Washington. And even Philadelphia to an extent. It's really not hard to see Chicago - a city which has stemmed massive population loss and continues to have a sizable economic base - make a rebound and join the club of high-income, economically strong, growing cities. In fact, I'd say that's more likely than entering some Rust Belt phase of terminal decline.

[Redban]

No, IA, MO are leading R states, but PA, OH, MI, IL, WI and VA are leading D

Right now, yes. But this topic isn’t about right now. It’s about future elections, trends. Chicago’s metro area lost nearly 100,000 people from 2014 to 2019. If that trend continues - if Chicago’s metro area loses nearly 200,000 people from 2020-2028 - couldn’t that put the state back in play in the 2028 or 2032 election?

The Midwest and Northeast, in general, are the areas that are losing people.  And Illinois is leading the pack by a lot. So Chicago is likely to continue losing people; the population decline is unlikely to reverse. This population decline will have no effect, according to you?

I don't get why you're so presumptive that the population decline will continue in the long term. Compared to other Midwestern cities like Detroit and Cleveland, Chicago's gotten along better over the last 30 years and still has a pretty vibrant economy. If the city manages to do something about crime and increase quality of life for its minority citizens, then it has a lot of the bones which are needed for it to reverse its population decline. It's not like its Rust Belt city which had its economic base abandon it and is mostly urban blight; it's still a major hub for a bunch of industries and has a lot of aspects which make it desirable to live in.

1st sentence — not presumptuous. Cities don’t ever come back from this sort of big population decline (New York City after the 1970s decline is the only one to do it).

They might have years where the population decline slows or even gains slightly (Chicago did gain people in the earlier part of the 2010s). But in the long run, cities don’t ever return from the population decline.

Most demographic analysts say that, in the foreseeable future, the Sun Belt is the area to which most people will migrate. The Northeast and Midwest are going to continue losing people.

And San Francisco. And Seattle. And Minneapolis. And Boston. And Washington. And even Philadelphia to an extent. It's really not hard to see Chicago - a city which has stemmed massive population loss and continues to have a sizable economic base - make a rebound and join the club of high-income, economically strong, growing cities. In fact, I'd say that's more likely than entering some Rust Belt phase of terminal decline.

Nope. Look at the metro area population numbers. There was always a population gain for all of those cities. They never dropped the way Chicago did. NYC is the only one to ever come back from serious population loss.

[Nyvin]

No, IA, MO are leading R states, but PA, OH, MI, IL, WI and VA are leading D

Right now, yes. But this topic isn’t about right now. It’s about future elections, trends. Chicago’s metro area lost nearly 100,000 people from 2014 to 2019. If that trend continues - if Chicago’s metro area loses nearly 200,000 people from 2020-2028 - couldn’t that put the state back in play in the 2028 or 2032 election?

The Midwest and Northeast, in general, are the areas that are losing people.  And Illinois is leading the pack by a lot. So Chicago is likely to continue losing people; the population decline is unlikely to reverse. This population decline will have no effect, according to you?

I don't get why you're so presumptive that the population decline will continue in the long term. Compared to other Midwestern cities like Detroit and Cleveland, Chicago's gotten along better over the last 30 years and still has a pretty vibrant economy. If the city manages to do something about crime and increase quality of life for its minority citizens, then it has a lot of the bones which are needed for it to reverse its population decline. It's not like its Rust Belt city which had its economic base abandon it and is mostly urban blight; it's still a major hub for a bunch of industries and has a lot of aspects which make it desirable to live in.

1st sentence — not presumptuous. Cities don’t ever come back from this sort of big population decline (New York City after the 1970s decline is the only one to do it).

They might have years where the population decline slows or even gains slightly (Chicago did gain people in the earlier part of the 2010s). But in the long run, cities don’t ever return from the population decline.

Most demographic analysts say that, in the foreseeable future, the Sun Belt is the area to which most people will migrate. The Northeast and Midwest are going to continue losing people.

And San Francisco. And Seattle. And Minneapolis. And Boston. And Washington. And even Philadelphia to an extent. It's really not hard to see Chicago - a city which has stemmed massive population loss and continues to have a sizable economic base - make a rebound and join the club of high-income, economically strong, growing cities. In fact, I'd say that's more likely than entering some Rust Belt phase of terminal decline.

Nope. Look at the metro area population numbers. There was always a population gain for all of those cities. They never dropped the way Chicago did. NYC is the only one to ever come back from serious population loss.

Not true at all.   Lots of Metros return to growth.   Philadelphia was in decline from 1940 all the way to 2003.   It's been growing ever since.

[Redban]

No, IA, MO are leading R states, but PA, OH, MI, IL, WI and VA are leading D

Right now, yes. But this topic isn’t about right now. It’s about future elections, trends. Chicago’s metro area lost nearly 100,000 people from 2014 to 2019. If that trend continues - if Chicago’s metro area loses nearly 200,000 people from 2020-2028 - couldn’t that put the state back in play in the 2028 or 2032 election?

The Midwest and Northeast, in general, are the areas that are losing people.  And Illinois is leading the pack by a lot. So Chicago is likely to continue losing people; the population decline is unlikely to reverse. This population decline will have no effect, according to you?

I don't get why you're so presumptive that the population decline will continue in the long term. Compared to other Midwestern cities like Detroit and Cleveland, Chicago's gotten along better over the last 30 years and still has a pretty vibrant economy. If the city manages to do something about crime and increase quality of life for its minority citizens, then it has a lot of the bones which are needed for it to reverse its population decline. It's not like its Rust Belt city which had its economic base abandon it and is mostly urban blight; it's still a major hub for a bunch of industries and has a lot of aspects which make it desirable to live in.

1st sentence — not presumptuous. Cities don’t ever come back from this sort of big population decline (New York City after the 1970s decline is the only one to do it).

They might have years where the population decline slows or even gains slightly (Chicago did gain people in the earlier part of the 2010s). But in the long run, cities don’t ever return from the population decline.

Most demographic analysts say that, in the foreseeable future, the Sun Belt is the area to which most people will migrate. The Northeast and Midwest are going to continue losing people.

And San Francisco. And Seattle. And Minneapolis. And Boston. And Washington. And even Philadelphia to an extent. It's really not hard to see Chicago - a city which has stemmed massive population loss and continues to have a sizable economic base - make a rebound and join the club of high-income, economically strong, growing cities. In fact, I'd say that's more likely than entering some Rust Belt phase of terminal decline.

Nope. Look at the metro area population numbers. There was always a population gain for all of those cities. They never dropped the way Chicago did. NYC is the only one to ever come back from serious population loss.

Not true at all.   Lots of Metros return to growth.   Philadelphia was in decline from 1940 all the way to 2003.   It's been growing ever since.

I’ve got no idea where you’re getting your numbers from.

This is Philly’s metro area. Steady growth, although it has been sluggish lately. The boundary between Philly’s metro area and NYC’s metro area is blurry. Some of the population growth for Philly’s metro area is coming from the NJ areas (Chester, Gloucester).

Historical population (estimates)
Year   Pop.   ±%
1850   405,000   -
1860   608,000   50.12%
1870   747,000   22.86%
1880   949,000   27.04%
1890   1,180,000   24.34%
1900   1,454,000   10.44%
1910   1,746,000   8.26%
1920   2,072,000   18.67%
1930   2,264,000   9.27%
1940   2,538,000   12.10%
1950   3,297,000   29.90%
1960   4,419,000   34.09%
1970   5,323,000   20.46%
1980   5,239,000   -1.57%
1990   5,435,000   3.74%
2000   5,687,000   4.66%
2010   5,965,000   4.89%
2017   6,029,312   1.07%

And if you look at Philadelphia city alone (not the Metro area), Philly has downsized nearly 25% since it’s peak of 2 million in 1960.

2018   1,584,138       3,917   0.25%
2017   1,580,221       3,831   0.24%
2016   1,576,390       5,132   0.33%
2015   1,571,258       5,654   0.36%
2014   1,565,604       7,233   0.46%
2013   1,558,371       6,574   0.42%
2012   1,551,797       11,475   0.74%
2011   1,540,322       12,029   0.79%
2010   1,528,293       10,743   0.07%
2000   1,517,550      -68,027   -0.44%
1990   1,585,577     -102,633   -0.63%
1980   1,688,210     -261,786   -1.43%
1970   1,949,996     -52,516   -0.27%
1960   2,002,512     -69,093   -0.34%
1950   2,071,605     140,271   0.70%
1940   1,931,334     -19,627   -0.10%

So again, I don’t know what numbers you’re using to say Philly returned.

Again, for the third or fourth time, New York City is the only city that ever came back from serious population loss.

[Nyvin]

No, IA, MO are leading R states, but PA, OH, MI, IL, WI and VA are leading D

Right now, yes. But this topic isn’t about right now. It’s about future elections, trends. Chicago’s metro area lost nearly 100,000 people from 2014 to 2019. If that trend continues - if Chicago’s metro area loses nearly 200,000 people from 2020-2028 - couldn’t that put the state back in play in the 2028 or 2032 election?

The Midwest and Northeast, in general, are the areas that are losing people.  And Illinois is leading the pack by a lot. So Chicago is likely to continue losing people; the population decline is unlikely to reverse. This population decline will have no effect, according to you?

I don't get why you're so presumptive that the population decline will continue in the long term. Compared to other Midwestern cities like Detroit and Cleveland, Chicago's gotten along better over the last 30 years and still has a pretty vibrant economy. If the city manages to do something about crime and increase quality of life for its minority citizens, then it has a lot of the bones which are needed for it to reverse its population decline. It's not like its Rust Belt city which had its economic base abandon it and is mostly urban blight; it's still a major hub for a bunch of industries and has a lot of aspects which make it desirable to live in.

1st sentence — not presumptuous. Cities don’t ever come back from this sort of big population decline (New York City after the 1970s decline is the only one to do it).

They might have years where the population decline slows or even gains slightly (Chicago did gain people in the earlier part of the 2010s). But in the long run, cities don’t ever return from the population decline.

Most demographic analysts say that, in the foreseeable future, the Sun Belt is the area to which most people will migrate. The Northeast and Midwest are going to continue losing people.

And San Francisco. And Seattle. And Minneapolis. And Boston. And Washington. And even Philadelphia to an extent. It's really not hard to see Chicago - a city which has stemmed massive population loss and continues to have a sizable economic base - make a rebound and join the club of high-income, economically strong, growing cities. In fact, I'd say that's more likely than entering some Rust Belt phase of terminal decline.

Nope. Look at the metro area population numbers. There was always a population gain for all of those cities. They never dropped the way Chicago did. NYC is the only one to ever come back from serious population loss.

Not true at all.   Lots of Metros return to growth.   Philadelphia was in decline from 1940 all the way to 2003.   It's been growing ever since.

I’ve got no idea where you’re getting your numbers from.

This is Philly’s metro area. Steady growth, although it has been sluggish lately. The boundary between Philly’s metro area and NYC’s metro area is blurry. Some of the population growth for Philly’s metro area is coming from the NJ areas (Chester, Gloucester).

Historical population (estimates)
Year   Pop.   ±%
1850   405,000   -
1860   608,000   50.12%
1870   747,000   22.86%
1880   949,000   27.04%
1890   1,180,000   24.34%
1900   1,454,000   10.44%
1910   1,746,000   8.26%
1920   2,072,000   18.67%
1930   2,264,000   9.27%
1940   2,538,000   12.10%
1950   3,297,000   29.90%
1960   4,419,000   34.09%
1970   5,323,000   20.46%
1980   5,239,000   -1.57%
1990   5,435,000   3.74%
2000   5,687,000   4.66%
2010   5,965,000   4.89%
2017   6,029,312   1.07%

And if you look at Philadelphia city alone (not the Metro area), Philly has downsized nearly 25% since it’s peak of 2 million in 1960.

2018   1,584,138       3,917   0.25%
2017   1,580,221       3,831   0.24%
2016   1,576,390       5,132   0.33%
2015   1,571,258       5,654   0.36%
2014   1,565,604       7,233   0.46%
2013   1,558,371       6,574   0.42%
2012   1,551,797       11,475   0.74%
2011   1,540,322       12,029   0.79%
2010   1,528,293       10,743   0.07%
2000   1,517,550      -68,027   -0.44%
1990   1,585,577     -102,633   -0.63%
1980   1,688,210     -261,786   -1.43%
1970   1,949,996     -52,516   -0.27%
1960   2,002,512     -69,093   -0.34%
1950   2,071,605     140,271   0.70%
1940   1,931,334     -19,627   -0.10%

So again, I don’t know what numbers you’re using to say Philly returned.

Again, for the third or fourth time, New York City is the only city that ever came back from serious population loss.

You weren't talking about total numbers, you were talking about overall year to year growth.  You're changing subjects here.   

What relevance does recovering total numbers have to do with how Illinois trends?   What matters is where the growth and declines year to year are in the state.   Metros can return to year to year growth after long declines, as shown by Philadelphia and other cities.   Recovering the total population they had 40 or whatever years ago is irrelevant.

[Redban]

No, IA, MO are leading R states, but PA, OH, MI, IL, WI and VA are leading D

Right now, yes. But this topic isn’t about right now. It’s about future elections, trends. Chicago’s metro area lost nearly 100,000 people from 2014 to 2019. If that trend continues - if Chicago’s metro area loses nearly 200,000 people from 2020-2028 - couldn’t that put the state back in play in the 2028 or 2032 election?

The Midwest and Northeast, in general, are the areas that are losing people.  And Illinois is leading the pack by a lot. So Chicago is likely to continue losing people; the population decline is unlikely to reverse. This population decline will have no effect, according to you?

I don't get why you're so presumptive that the population decline will continue in the long term. Compared to other Midwestern cities like Detroit and Cleveland, Chicago's gotten along better over the last 30 years and still has a pretty vibrant economy. If the city manages to do something about crime and increase quality of life for its minority citizens, then it has a lot of the bones which are needed for it to reverse its population decline. It's not like its Rust Belt city which had its economic base abandon it and is mostly urban blight; it's still a major hub for a bunch of industries and has a lot of aspects which make it desirable to live in.

1st sentence — not presumptuous. Cities don’t ever come back from this sort of big population decline (New York City after the 1970s decline is the only one to do it).

They might have years where the population decline slows or even gains slightly (Chicago did gain people in the earlier part of the 2010s). But in the long run, cities don’t ever return from the population decline.

Most demographic analysts say that, in the foreseeable future, the Sun Belt is the area to which most people will migrate. The Northeast and Midwest are going to continue losing people.

And San Francisco. And Seattle. And Minneapolis. And Boston. And Washington. And even Philadelphia to an extent. It's really not hard to see Chicago - a city which has stemmed massive population loss and continues to have a sizable economic base - make a rebound and join the club of high-income, economically strong, growing cities. In fact, I'd say that's more likely than entering some Rust Belt phase of terminal decline.

Nope. Look at the metro area population numbers. There was always a population gain for all of those cities. They never dropped the way Chicago did. NYC is the only one to ever come back from serious population loss.

Not true at all.   Lots of Metros return to growth.   Philadelphia was in decline from 1940 all the way to 2003.   It's been growing ever since.

I’ve got no idea where you’re getting your numbers from.

This is Philly’s metro area. Steady growth, although it has been sluggish lately. The boundary between Philly’s metro area and NYC’s metro area is blurry. Some of the population growth for Philly’s metro area is coming from the NJ areas (Chester, Gloucester).

Historical population (estimates)
Year   Pop.   ±%
1850   405,000   -
1860   608,000   50.12%
1870   747,000   22.86%
1880   949,000   27.04%
1890   1,180,000   24.34%
1900   1,454,000   10.44%
1910   1,746,000   8.26%
1920   2,072,000   18.67%
1930   2,264,000   9.27%
1940   2,538,000   12.10%
1950   3,297,000   29.90%
1960   4,419,000   34.09%
1970   5,323,000   20.46%
1980   5,239,000   -1.57%
1990   5,435,000   3.74%
2000   5,687,000   4.66%
2010   5,965,000   4.89%
2017   6,029,312   1.07%

And if you look at Philadelphia city alone (not the Metro area), Philly has downsized nearly 25% since it’s peak of 2 million in 1960.

2018   1,584,138       3,917   0.25%
2017   1,580,221       3,831   0.24%
2016   1,576,390       5,132   0.33%
2015   1,571,258       5,654   0.36%
2014   1,565,604       7,233   0.46%
2013   1,558,371       6,574   0.42%
2012   1,551,797       11,475   0.74%
2011   1,540,322       12,029   0.79%
2010   1,528,293       10,743   0.07%
2000   1,517,550      -68,027   -0.44%
1990   1,585,577     -102,633   -0.63%
1980   1,688,210     -261,786   -1.43%
1970   1,949,996     -52,516   -0.27%
1960   2,002,512     -69,093   -0.34%
1950   2,071,605     140,271   0.70%
1940   1,931,334     -19,627   -0.10%

So again, I don’t know what numbers you’re using to say Philly returned.

Again, for the third or fourth time, New York City is the only city that ever came back from serious population loss.

You weren't talking about total numbers, you were talking about overall year to year growth.  You're changing subjects here.   

What relevance does recovering total numbers have to do with how Illinois trends?   What matters is where the growth and declines year to year are in the state.   Metros can return to year to year growth after long declines, as shown by Philadelphia and other cities.   Recovering the total population they had 40 or whatever years ago is irrelevant.

A city goes from 2.071 million to 1.5 million , losing over 25% of its people. Then that city averages 8,000 people, less than 1% growth / yr, over a decade. And you think that city is booming and “came back” from its decline?

A return to growth (including sluggish growth) does not mean a city “came back.”

 I don’t know what you’re talking about when you say, ”You weren't talking about total numbers, you were talking about overall year to year growth.” I never spoke about year to year growth without reference to the total numbers.

[Nyvin]

A city goes from 2.071 million to 1.5 million , losing over 25% of its people. Then that city averages 8,000 people, less than 1% growth / yr, over a decade. And you think that city is booming and “came back” from its decline?

A return to growth (including sluggish growth) does not mean a city “came back.”

 I don’t know what you’re talking about when you say, ”You weren't talking about total numbers, you were talking about overall year to year growth.” I never spoke about year to year growth without reference to the total numbers.

Your original statement for the topic was this -

Right now, yes. But this topic isn’t about right now. It’s about future elections, trends. Chicago’s metro area lost nearly 100,000 people from 2014 to 2019. If that trend continues - if Chicago’s metro area loses nearly 200,000 people from 2020-2028 - couldn’t that put the state back in play in the 2028 or 2032 election?

The Midwest and Northeast, in general, are the areas that are losing people.  And Illinois is leading the pack by a lot. So Chicago is likely to continue losing people; the population decline is unlikely to reverse. This population decline will have no effect, according to you?

You're directly saying "trend continues" and "likely to continue losing people"

Both of these suggest you are talking about the year to year growth.   I just showed you that it's not true that once cities start a decline they never get out of it.  

It's totally possible for Chicago to decline from 2020 to a couple years in the future and then start growing again.   Therefore the "trend" you're talking about isn't true.   There's nothing on the table to guarantee Chicago loses 200,000 people from 2020 to 2028.

(Never mind the fact that this says nothing about population loses from the more Republican downstate areas)

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

You guys do realize that population trends are different across different parts of both the city and the metropolitan area, right? Some areas have seen steep population loss, many have stagnated, while others are booming. It's not that clear-cut.

Many parts of the city and metropolitan area are economically strong and offer a compelling quality of life (seriously, the cost of living is incredibly low for such a large metro area in a developed country) while other parts have stagnated or seriously declined (especially the industrial areas). It's also very well equipped to handle the effects of climate change, unlike the Sun Belt.

Furthermore the above discussion in quote boxes ignores the fact that Democrats have made major inroads amongst the suburbs, including the booming parts. Maybe the Democratic margin gradually shrinks, but it's very hard to see Illinois revert back to its pre-1990s swing state status. That would require Republicans to again dominate the suburbs by huge margins, not just 2000s-margins. Rural Republican areas are also seeing huge losses that make their uphill climb even tougher. Very hard to see that happening again anytime soon given the GOP's current trajectory and the increasing diversification of the suburbs.

[Redban]

  I just showed you that it's not true that once cities start a decline they never get out of it.  

1- I said “if the trend continues,” not that the trend will continue.

2- “Likely to continue losing people” was in reference to the prevailing view that the Midwest is not a hotspot for domestic and international migration in upcoming  years, as the Sun Belt is the main attraction. Hence, Chicago is likely to continue losing people.

3- On the quote above — No city that has ever lost substantial population has ever regained the amount of population lost, except NYC. That is what I meant when I said that no city besides NYC ever came back from a population loss. To “come back” means just that. Cities have been able to slow population loss or gain negligible amounts (i.e. Philly), but no city besides NYC ever came back and regained all the glory lost.

[538Electoral]

Possibly.

[dw93]

It's possible, but I don't see it happening till 2036 or 2040 at the very earliest and that's stretching it.