2030 Electoral Map (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:24:43 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  2030 Electoral Map (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: 2030 Electoral Map  (Read 21772 times)
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


« on: July 26, 2006, 06:36:47 PM »

I doubt that it will happen just as the census predicts.  treands will change.  As realestate becomes cheaper in the Northeast and Midwest, more people will coose to either stay there, or comeback.  Also, the Northern states will eventually lift a number of the government blocks that keep businesses from establishing there.

As for the Southwest, there soon won't be enough water to sustain much more growth.  New technology will develop, but it won't be common fast enough to allow that kind of growth.

California is due for another major earthquake.  I hope it doesn't happen, but hoping will not stop it.  It is only a matter of time.  When that happens, it will serious stunt the growth of the state.  Not to mention that sprawl and real estate prices make living there more and more inconvienient.

Florida will also slow in growth.  This will be for much the same reasons that California's growth will slow, accept hurricanes instead of earthquakes.  Plus, there is the added fact that the ground itself is not favorable for building, sine any new growth will have to go farther into the marshes.

I see the continued growth of Texas as pretty realistic.  There really aren't too many blocks to that occuring.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2006, 01:00:55 AM »

Supersoulty has the right idea. There are two huge problems with forecasts to 2030. One is that the census can project current trends, but can't anticipate new trends very well. Changes in immigration patterns as well as relocation patterens are likely to shift as they have with each generation. I'm comfortable looking at 2010, but my confidence drops a lot when I'm dealing with voters who aren't yet born.

The second factor is in the parties themselves. 2032 is 28 years from the last presidential election. 28 years before 2004 was 1976 (my first chance to vote Smiley ). Both elections were decided with the winner holding under 300 EV -- they're close. Compare the maps of those two elections and there are 24 states that voted differently. That's almost half. The South and Pacific Coast, and northern New England flipped. IL and MI were in the GOP camp in 1976. It's an even bet that another shift will occur sometime in the next 28 years.

I agree with distant population predicitions to be weak, but I disagree with your party analysis.  The parties switched ideologies after 100 years sticking with on ideology.  1976 was a year when the change was still underway and so the election played out oddly with people voting Republic or Democrat for opposing reasons.  I believe the current ideologies are here to stay for a long time.

Realignments dont only happen once every 100 years.

Also, if you look at the electorate today, would you not say that voters vote for the two major parties for vastly different reasons.

That is why this current allignment really bothers me, and I don't think it can hold.  I would say the most natural allignment is essencially libertarian vs populist, and that was the way politics behaved for nearly all of the past 200 years.  The current parties are an amalgamation of odd interests, that I don't think can hold together for very long.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


« Reply #2 on: July 30, 2006, 03:19:46 AM »

Hmm, i just found out that in 1980 Kerry would have won 270 to 268 if he would have carried all the states he carried in 2004. In 2030 he would get only 230 votes. This means Democrats HAVE TO WIN states which are now Republican because these states are the ones which will gain the most electoral votes in the future.

The bigger challenge is to gain an outright majority of the vote. Democrats have only succeeded twice since FDR: the Johnson landslide of 1964, and Carter's 50.1% in 1976. The Republicans exceeded 50% in seven of their nine wins in that same period.

True.  From a political standpoint, Clinton was shackled during his presidency by the fact that he failed to achieve a mandate.  Though most people don't remember it, Kennedy acctually had the same problem.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 12 queries.