Swing States in the 2030s and 40s

[CookieDamage]

This is a very loose sort of prediction

Going from West to East:

Arizona - Conservative retirees finally die off and it becomes a lean D state.

Montana - Dem state transplants tilt the state to being a pure tossup. I could see it getting 6 or 7 electoral votes in the 2030s.

Texas - Typical story. Booming cities. If suburbs continue trending D and hit the Texas suburbs, I believe it'll be a swing state and possibly tilt D, but only barely.

Kansas - Lean R due to growth in the Kansas City metro, plus Democrat suburbs, but idk.

Nevada and Colorado become safe D states.

Minnesota - White rurals going R will be counteracted by growing Minneapolis, but I don't know if Minneapolis will be growing or not in 10 to 20 years, and how fast.

Wisconsin - Closer to tilt R than pure tossup, but same story. White rurals going R while the suburbs go slightly Democratic, although the Milwaukee suburbs might remain republican longer than other suburbs.

Michigan - Idk if Detroit will continue losing population. If it does, it'll be a tilt R state, if not, tossup.

Pennsylvania - Closer to tilt D than pure tossup. Philly is growing slowly but we don't know what that will look like in the future. Maybe Philly will grow faster and Pittsburgh will stop losing people, if so, then tilt D tossup.

Virginia - Safe D. I think NOVA growing will solidify it as a safe D state.

Vermont - Lean D. I think liberal white Vermonters and their children will give way to a more moderate or even conservative electorate. If white rurals continue going R it will be closer to tilt D than likely/safe D.

New Hampshire/Maine - Tossup, possibly closer to tilt R. Small urban areas will not be able to counteract the white rurals going R.

North Carolina - Tossup - it has a lot of bloodred suburbs which, like Milwaukee's, might take time to go D, if at all.

Florida - Tossup, because Florida.

Definitely open to critiques. I can see Connecticut and Delaware losing their Safe D statuses: However, Delaware is anchored by Wilmington and Philly suburbs while Connecticut has NYC suburbs.

I don't get why people think Rhode Island will be the first New England state to be an R state.

[Catalyst138]

I don't get why people think Rhode Island will be the first New England state to be an R state.

Probably because it swung a lot to Trump in 2016, but I don't think that will last.

[Suburban Republican]

[brucejoel99]

I don't get why people think Rhode Island will be the first New England state to be an R state.

Rhode Island is probably as much of a long-term opportunity for Republicans as Mississippi is for the Democrats.

[CookieDamage]

I'm tempted to think this is satire lol, but anyways. I strongly disagree with Oklahoma, Alabama, and Kentucky as being lean R. South Carolina is somewhat plausible but idk. Louisiana and Mississippi as tossups, why? I see how their high Dem floors being a plus but that's very static. Also why is CO swingy? Oregon, Washington, Illinois? RI??

[Suburban Republican]

I'm tempted to think this is satire lol, but anyways. I strongly disagree with Oklahoma, Alabama, and Kentucky as being lean R. South Carolina is somewhat plausible but idk. Louisiana and Mississippi as tossups, why? I see how their high Dem floors being a plus but that's very static. Also why is CO swingy? Oregon, Washington, Illinois? RI??

Not satire. Trends are never permanent. Parties constantly tweak and adjust their platforms to appeal to new sects of voters. Therefore, predicting which states will vote which way is almost impossible. That's essentially what my map is trying to convey.

[Nyvin]

I'd go by the urban/rural divide getting bigger and bigger more than anything. 

I find that trend to be the most long lasting.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

[Dac10]

This is my map. I’m essentially just pretty reserves in how many of these trends will actually pan out into real EC results in that timeframe. While they’ll definitely be closer, I‘m sort of doubtful states like Texas, Georgia, or North Carolina will ever have an actual shot at going D. The only changes I feel sure about are the ones that are clearer.

So for Ds, VA, NV and CO become solid D. Arizona becoming tilt D and Montana tilt R are the only places where the demographic shift shows up as electoral results on the actual map. Meanwhile NH, Maine, and Minnesota become more favourable to Rs for the same reason, but still Tilt D overall. The Rs gain in Ohio becoming a solid R, Florida and Michigan become strong tilt, and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania becoming Tossup (Wisconsin has a lean R, and Pennsylvania has a Tilt D, by they are the most malleable states).

This is all assuming the parties run the current sort of “establishment” candidates with the type of “establishment” policies they currently have. The map can change hugely depending on if the candidates running change (EX. Rs go back to a pre Trump style candidate, Rs go for extreme right-wing populist (but an actually ideologically committed one, not a Trump lol), Ds run a left wing Sanders-type of candidate, Rs run neocon, Rs run libertarian)

[iceman]

This is my map. I’m essentially just pretty reserves in how many of these trends will actually pan out into real EC results in that timeframe. While they’ll definitely be closer, I‘m sort of doubtful states like Texas, Georgia, or North Carolina will ever have an actual shot at going D. The only changes I feel sure about are the ones that are clearer.

So for Ds, VA, NV and CO become solid D. Arizona becoming tilt D and Montana tilt R are the only places where the demographic shift shows up as electoral results on the actual map. Meanwhile NH, Maine, and Minnesota become more favourable to Rs for the same reason, but still Tilt D overall. The Rs gain in Ohio becoming a solid R, Florida and Michigan become strong tilt, and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania becoming Tossup (Wisconsin has a lean R, and Pennsylvania has a Tilt D, by they are the most malleable states).

No way is Michigan becoming TILT-R first than Wisconsin.

[Dac10]

This is my map. I’m essentially just pretty reserves in how many of these trends will actually pan out into real EC results in that timeframe. While they’ll definitely be closer, I‘m sort of doubtful states like Texas, Georgia, or North Carolina will ever have an actual shot at going D. The only changes I feel sure about are the ones that are clearer.

So for Ds, VA, NV and CO become solid D. Arizona becoming tilt D and Montana tilt R are the only places where the demographic shift shows up as electoral results on the actual map. Meanwhile NH, Maine, and Minnesota become more favourable to Rs for the same reason, but still Tilt D overall. The Rs gain in Ohio becoming a solid R, Florida and Michigan become strong tilt, and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania becoming Tossup (Wisconsin has a lean R, and Pennsylvania has a Tilt D, by they are the most malleable states).

No way is Michigan becoming TILT-R first than Wisconsin.

It is if Detroit keeps on losing population (and most important, Ds keep dropping in voter turnout) like it is. And as long as the Rs keep running Trump style candidates, and Ds keep running Democratic Establishment types.

Rust Belt “transition” to service sector continues to happen over a long time, and with no real Federal relief. Which means that it’s economy stays terrible, and the disenchantment with the neoliberal status quo continues. Wisconsin tilts strong R, but gains just barely gains enough population growth of transplant/professional liberals in its cities to keep it viable. Michigan experiences much much less of that. Without it’s cities being an attractive bougie destination for transplants+young educated professionals, it has a less of those liberals coming in. With no real strongholds to hold a torch for the Dem establishment, it becomes Presidentially Rs. And the leftover former D populations are left demoralized by politics, so they just stop turning out. It’s not enough for the Rs to fully takeover the state, like in Ohio. Michigan is fundamentally more divided, and so the R voter pool and base are much smaller. But it’s enough for the Ds to have no real shot at contest which voters see as “important”. *Please Note: I am totally open to the possibility this is wrong and bullsh**t lol. But it’s just where I see current urban trends going.

[Nightcore Nationalist]

How do you do pink and light blue?  I'll post a map soon.

[😥]

How do you do pink and light blue?  I'll post a map soon.

Where there is a percentage mark across each state, choose 30% if you want a light blue or pink

[Nightcore Nationalist]

Pennsylvania stays competitive due to northeasterners moving there for lower housing costs, the remainder of the great lakes/rust belt is lean or likely R. Also Virginia should be 60%. Metro growth moves MT/UT/KS lean R.  Rest is pretty self explanatory. 

[Tipping Point]

Oregon - whites lining up with the national trends but they'll be about 60% Republican there vs 70% nationally so Democrats will have a shot, but it'll be on borrowed time. Tossup initially considered a lean D state who could become the Wisconsin of 2030 and become lean R later.

Washington - if Oregon 2030 = Wisconsin 2016. Washington 2030 = Minnesota 2016

Arizona - depends on how immigration does but probably lean D.

Texas - tilt R, it'll become the next Florida alongside North Carolina

North Carolina - see Texas

Georgia - lean D

Illinois - lean D

Pennsylvania- lean R

Most will be lean D because the Obama-Trump states who flipped in 2016 will quickly become likely R except for Pennsylvania (because of the Philly burbs). Also the likes of Maine and NH will swing like WV and their swingy phase won't last until 2030-40.

[RINO Tom]

I cannot begin to guess swing states two decades from now accurately (i.e., just look at 1996 to 2006 to 2016 ... come on), but RE: Arizona, why wouldn’t those “conservative retirees” dying off presumptively be replaced by more incoming conservative retirees?  Again, I’m not predicting AZ’s further trends, but if it goes more and more Democratic, it will take more than older GOP retirees passing away.

[Skill and Chance]

This may be a bit radical, but here we go:

1. The Republican shift from a Southern to a Midwestern base is now on full display, and they have also broken through in parts of New England.

2.  Democrats break through in the High Plains and Mountain West states to an extent not seen since the Depression (some of this is helped along by continuing Mormon 3rd party activity in Utah and to a lesser extent, Idaho).

[Agonized-Statism]

Texas is so massive it decides every election.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Alaska has trended D in every election since the year 2004. Bush won Alaska by 25 points in 2004, while Trump won Alaska by 15 points in 2016. It has been a slow and steady drip drip in Alaska, no dramatic swings, but it adds up over time.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Alaska has trended D in every election since the year 2004. Bush won Alaska by 25 points in 2004, while Trump won Alaska by 15 points in 2016. It has been a slow and steady drip drip in Alaska, no dramatic swings, but it adds up over time.

But you also have to compare to the national vote. Bush won by 25 percent in a a 2.5% popular vote win. You can’t expect that margin to stay in 2008 and 2012, which were weaker years for the Republican brand.

2004 - 22% +R
2008 - 20% +R
2012 - 10% + R
2016 - 17% + R

Might seem like there were some big swings (2012), but with these smaller states, percentages can vary widely, without speaking to trends.

Finally - Alaska is a state that is losing people, an event that often favors the Republicans. Since the 1970s, it’s been good for 100,000-200,000 gain per decade. Since 2010, it’s gained only about 30k people, basically stagnating since 2011-2012. It is also a state that is getting older.

If AK melts I don't think any of that will matter, people will just vote for the party who isn't actively detsroying their state

[jamestroll]

Illinois is not going to be a swing state if you are assuming present trends continue.

With the way this forum talks you would think Illinois will have the strongest swing to Trump in the country this November.

[Skill and Chance]

Alaska has trended D in every election since the year 2004. Bush won Alaska by 25 points in 2004, while Trump won Alaska by 15 points in 2016. It has been a slow and steady drip drip in Alaska, no dramatic swings, but it adds up over time.

But you also have to compare to the national vote. Bush won by 25 percent in a a 2.5% popular vote win. You can’t expect that margin to stay in 2008 and 2012, which were weaker years for the Republican brand.

2004 - 22% +R
2008 - 20% +R
2012 - 10% + R
2016 - 17% + R

Might seem like there were some big swings (2012), but with these smaller states, percentages can vary widely, without speaking to trends.

Finally - Alaska is a state that is losing people, an event that often favors the Republicans. Since the 1970s, it’s been good for 100,000-200,000 gain per decade. Since 2010, it’s gained only about 30k people, basically stagnating since 2011-2012. It is also a state that is getting older.

That is almost 100% oil price driven.  The people who are leaving and/or not coming in would have voted near unanimous R.  That could be part of the reason it appears to be moving left.