How will America be in 2050

[Josh/Devilman88]

There are alot of people moving out of New York and moving to NC....

[KEmperor]

There are alot of people moving out of New York and moving to NC....

That seems to be your argument for a lot of things.

[12th Doctor]

There are alot of people moving out of New York and moving to NC....

Hate to burst your bubble buddy, but North Carolina is not going to hit 30 EV's in our life times.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Because NC will be the New" new york" someday

[minionofmidas]

There are alot of people moving out of New York and moving to NC....

Hate to burst your bubble buddy, but North Carolina is not going to hit 30 EV's in our life times.

That depends on how large the House and Senate are going to be when we're old.

[muon2]

One huge probelm with the census data.  Well... two huge problems.

1) It doesn't take into account new technologies that will or developments that will drastically effect the way people live.

Actually I think it does pretty well to the time period I've identified.

The time scale for transportation or energy technologies to impact the economy in a meaningful way is typically 25 to 50 years. A traditional commuter rail project from inception to riders is at least 15 years; maglev would be longer. Modern wind farms have been around for more than twenty years but are just barely making a blip on the overall energy market; a new technology like fusion would take far longer.

It would be more correct to look at technologies from the last twenty years and see how they would affect this coming generation (telecommuting, regional jets, hybrid power generation).

2) This goes without saying, but it doesn't take into account the effect that these technologies will have on the economy and thus, migration patterns.

Most of the technologies implemented in the last twenty years make it less likely to see major relocation in the next twenty years. Telecommuting allows people to stay in the areas they grew up in even as work moves elsewhere.

3) And I guess a third one: if doesn't take into account any unforseen monumentous events that are going to have an impact on the above.

I can't disagree with this one. In my earlier post I had a disclaimer that a Great Depression event would change the forecast.

I also have been careful to project only one generation ahead. The second twenty years is very dependent on events in the first tewnty years to come. That said, it takes a lot to move the numbers of people you forecast even in 46 years.

[muon2]

Three technologies that I see coming in the next 30 years that are going to change a lot of things are:

1) Mag/Lev Trains- these have already been invented, but I believe that the building of future lines will massively effect the way people live and where they live.

2) Man-made water- Eventually, it will become profitable (and nessesary) to manufature water in labs, so the water resources of a particular area will not matter as much.

3) Fussion Power- Will totally change the concept of how we get our energy resources.  No more coal or oil.  All fussion.  Imagine be able to power a city the size of LA on for a month on a bucket of salt-water.  Well, that's what we'll get with fussion power.

It is interesting to look back and ask which technologies and demographics casued the substantial changes in the EV map from 46 years ago (1958 - my birth year).

The automobile is less a factor in EV during this period than it was during the Dustbowl. The freeway system changed regional demographics between city and suburb but was less of a factor on state to state migration.

People are most likely to make a significant relocation when they are about to start a career or famility and at the end of their career. Lesser movement comes when there is a major career shift, but this is tempered by family needs which tends to keep people in place.

I would argue that the most significant techological factors during the late 20th centrury were advances in medicine and the air conditioner pioneered in the pre WWII-era.  Air conditioning clearly contributed to the ability to the growth in the biggest gainers - CA, AZ, FL, TX. It produced livable work environments, and with the substantial increase in lifespan during the latter 20th century made retirement to the Sun Belt a popular option.

The declining states can point to the tchnological improvements in manufacturing. The big cities of the north needed large work forces to man the factories. As the productivity per worker increased the number of workers needed in the cities declined. The result was a lack of growth for states like NY, PA, OH, IL. The children of those families were most likely to start their careers in the emerging markets of the Sun Belt. Their parents follwed as they retired.

[Frodo]

this might change the dynamics of this thread a little, since the predominately Democratic Pacific Northwest is growing in population, when people have long assumed that long-term population growth trends favored Republicans:

State's population booming

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER STAFF AND NEWS SERVICES

Washington should gain one congressional seat by 2030 if U.S. Census Bureau population projections are correct. Census demographers predict the state's population will grow 46 percent over the next 25 years, to 8.6 million. That will move Washington up one notch to the 14th most populous state -- right between New Jersey and Tennessee. According to the projections, Washington will be the ninth fastest-growing state in the nation over the next 25 years. Other Northwest states also made that top 10: Idaho is expected to be the sixth fastest-growing state and Oregon the 10th fastest-growing state. If Washington's population growth meets expectations, the 10th congressional district will probably be in Western Washington.

[opebo]

Here's my map.  The darker tones don't represent vote percentages, just strength of lean. 

And here's a map that would more realistically represent what a campaign manager would face in 2050, as far as which states would be true tossups (the gray).  I have no idea how to change or estimate the electoral votes.

[muon2]

this might change the dynamics of this thread a little, since the predominately Democratic Pacific Northwest is growing in population, when people have long assumed that long-term population growth trends favored Republicans:

State's population booming

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER STAFF AND NEWS SERVICES

Washington should gain one congressional seat by 2030 if U.S. Census Bureau population projections are correct. Census demographers predict the state's population will grow 46 percent over the next 25 years, to 8.6 million. That will move Washington up one notch to the 14th most populous state -- right between New Jersey and Tennessee. According to the projections, Washington will be the ninth fastest-growing state in the nation over the next 25 years. Other Northwest states also made that top 10: Idaho is expected to be the sixth fastest-growing state and Oregon the 10th fastest-growing state. If Washington's population growth meets expectations, the 10th congressional district will probably be in Western Washington.

It seems very much in line with my projections made last summer.

I estimated the following changes by 2025:

AZ +2, NV +1 continuing the current trend, growth at more than double the national average.

FL +1, GA +1, TX +4 continuing their current trend, running at not quite double the national average.

ID +1, MT +1, NM +1, OR +1, UT +2, WA +1, the rest of the west will grow at one and a half times the national average.

CA +1, it's growth is slowing but it reaches the national average. To go below 50 it really has to shrink.

MN -1, it's on the bubble and just won't quite keep pace with the national growth rate without a new source of immigrants.

IL -1, MA -1, MI -1, MO -1, NJ -1 growth at half the national rate causes big states to lose seats slowly.

CT -1, IA -1, WV -1 with no significant population change they lose ground as small states.

NY -4, OH -2, PA -2, little growth causes a big loss here. Note that this still forecasts growth but barely - it shows how hard it would be to drop CA to 40-something.

[South Park Republican]

In a related item what are the chances that Congress will amend the 1907 limit of 435 reps.  Thus increasing the total number of reps maybe by adding them to states whoose growth warrants them more seats. 

I honestly could see the Democrats supporting this after the 2010 census because their losses in the northeast won't makeup for their gains on the left coast.  Their only hope would be that the porus US/Mexican border brings so many latinos from Mexico as both legal and illegal immigrants (since in their case it is not suppose to matter according to most in Washington) that it moves Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado firmly to the Democrats and gives them a fighting chance in Texas.

[A18]

Something like this. Swing states include Utah, Nebraska, Florida, New Hampshire, Virginia, Illinois, and Puerto Rico.

DC is finally part of Maryland, and shouldn't be there.

[bgwah]

Unless the parties change, the Northwest will stay democrat.

What is this about whites "fleeing" for the Northwest? I haven't heard anything like that before.

[MaC]

There will be an electoral shift, I can base somewhat on what's predicted and somewhat where I predict recession spots to be.  The third party is Libertarians.  Our first electoral victory was in 2020 only in NH.  Then we carried only Nevada in 2024, though New Hampshire was close.  Eventually, we claimed LP territory as three major areas, the southeast, upper New England, and the West.  Although not to a great extent, people are supporting us.  Populism (progressivism) will move back to states like Kansas where it originally started.  The 2052 election will be signifigant because 1. it's the highest electoral votes the LP has got.  2. it's the first time the south is not solid and splits amongst three parties, as it will in almost every future election.  The midwest is area for a more Republican stronghold.
2056:Libertarians get their first president, in a landslide victory, somethin' like 448-59-31

[bgwah]

There will be an electoral shift, I can base somewhat on what's predicted and somewhat where I predict recession spots to be.  The third party is Libertarians.  Our first electoral victory was in 2020 only in NH.  Then we carried only Nevada in 2024, though New Hampshire was close.  Eventually, we claimed LP territory as three major areas, the southeast, upper New England, and the West.  Although not to a great extent, people are supporting us.  Populism (progressivism) will move back to states like Kansas where it originally started.  The 2052 election will be signifigant because 1. it's the highest electoral votes the LP has got.  2. it's the first time the south is not solid and splits amongst three parties, as it will in almost every future election.  The midwest is area for a more Republican stronghold.
2056:Libertarians get their first president, in a landslide victory, somethin' like 448-59-31

Oregon? solidly Republican?

No.

[opebo]

Their only hope would be that the porus US/Mexican border brings so many latinos from Mexico as both legal and illegal immigrants (since in their case it is not suppose to matter according to most in Washington) that it moves Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado firmly to the Democrats and gives them a fighting chance in Texas.

The trend to Democrats in those states is not only based on Latinos, I think it is also based on a fair degree of increase in white social liberal/libertarian voters, both coming in from outside and increasing within.  Part of the seeming trend towards social liberalism in certain states will actually be people remaining status quo on the issues, while the GOP continues to move further and further towards extreme intolerance and social control under the domination of the Southern Christians.  This will slowly alienate the misguided libertarian-leaning Republicans in states like the Southwest.

I think all of those above states will lean Dem by 2050, except AZ will be more of a tossup and Texas will still lean GOP.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

2004:



1952:



Eh, this shows it's impossible to predict and that the map probably won't look anything like now in 50 years.

[DanielX]

There will be the following nations in what was once the US and Canada
-Confederate States of America
-People's Republic of New England
-Midwestern Republic
-Texas (the Lone Star Republic)
-Florida
-Western States of America (the Sagebrush Republic - includes Alaska and parts of Canada)
-The Pacific Social Democratic Republic (includes BC)
-The People's Republic of California
-La Republica Socialista de Aztlan
-Republic of Hawaii
-Republic of Canada (Ontario/Manitoba)
-Republique de Quebec
-Nunavut
-Maritime Democratic Republic

Utah might be a part of the WSA, and it might be independent.

Of course, by this time there are 502 independent nations, the largest of which is Siberia. France alone is seven states, including Brittany, Bordeaux, Cosica, Picardy, Lorraine, Lyon, and the Parisian Caliphate.

[muon2]

We may disagree on suburbs, but I'm with you 100% on this analysis.

2004:



1952:



Eh, this shows it's impossible to predict and that the map probably won't look anything like now in 50 years.

[MaC]

yeah, hence Jesus's questioning on why Oregon will be solid Republican.  I think population shifts from the Pacific coast (and from east of the Mississippi will occur to move inward.  Cities in general will get too big and people will hate the crowding as well as the inner city economy.  By now suburbs will will become big cities and they will have suburbs of their own (for example Detroit).  New York City will be the one counter example, (and noone will know for sure why), but they'll be lots of people in upstate New York.  The midwest will lose electoral because the midwestern recession of '47, with the exception of Michigan because of the "rising Phoenix" auto industry when hover cubes as well as hover cars, minibusses, and air boats will dominate Michigan's market.  Florida will lose votes because the elderly will die off because they'll get $6.90 SS check in the great SS bankrupcy of 2034.  Cali will lose votes because people will get sick of overtaxation and earthquakes.  The New England shift out of Mass ans New Jersey will happen for many different reasons.  More on this subject if you care to ask.

[Hatman 🍁]

Democrat candidate from NC or Ohio, Republican from Connecticut. Fairly strong Libertarian candidate from South Dakota.

We see that the US south and great plains become extremely partisan. The Pacific NW too becomes partisan, as with Vermont. Vermont has a State party that favours joining Canada that does very well in elections.

Toss-ups are Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Dakota

[Erc]

2004:



1952:



Eh, this shows it's impossible to predict and that the map probably won't look anything like now in 50 years.

For once, BRTD makes sense.

[MaC]

233-Green Party
305-Constitution Party

yeah, there'll be some huge population shifts, to Michigan, to California, to Texas, to Hawai'i(28 votes)
This is a different alternate future than the one I previously had; a bit less realistic.

[Frodo]

233-Green Party
305-Constitution Party

yeah, there'll be some huge population shifts, to Michigan, to California, to Texas, to Hawai'i(28 votes)
This is a different alternate future than the one I previously had; a bit less realistic.

so who's who in this map?  i can't tell whether the Green Party is supposed to be in blue, or whether it is the Constitution Party. 

[MaC]

sorry, green party is red, constitution party is blue.