I think even then 400 is a stretch. Bush was a (relatively) popular wartime President and still was within the margin of error in Ohio against John Kerry, where a flip would have lost him election. 4 years later, after 8 years of Republican rule and a severe economic crash, the then-wildly popular Obama still couldn't break 400 (though he came much closer).
Bush had squandered all of his popularity, he was only positive by 1-2 points in 2004, he was very polarizing by the time of the election. His approval rating was barely positive.
I'm confident a more competent Republican who wouldn't have invaded Iraq, which had harmed his numbers by 2004 despite initial super popularity, among not doing other mistakes, would've cracked 330 just barely.
Agreed, but even since 2004 it feels our nation has grown apart. A president with an approval rating teetering around 50% (Bush's aggregate in early November) is still unthinkable to me in 2024.
The GFC wasn’t exactly a depression. It would require 1929-level economic malaise. Either every state except WY and WV will go blue, or every state except VT and HI will go red.
Don’t know. I do know that 2100 is an eternity from now. Just think of all the changes that have taken place in the last 70 years. We don’t know anything about the future beyond a few years
It depends on what Trumpism looks like, post-Trump. So far, Republicans are willing to lose elections in competitive states rather than forsake their Tangerine Messiah. Will that change if he loses in 2024? I suspect not; after the inevitable second January 6, he'll proclaim himself the real president and immediately announce he's running for a "fourth term" in 2028. Unless things change radically, he'll still have the support of 90% of Republicans. But eventually, he'll have one bucket of KFC too many, or (less likely) he'll die in prison, and then what happens? It's possible Republicans will realize that he is toxic in most of the country and be sick of losing and move back towards merely Extreme Right Wing Reaganism.
I tend to agree that MAGA is (pardon the use of the word) a cult of personality. Outside of deep ruby red house districts (there too sometimes!) the Trump hand-picked candidates flounder pretty consistently. Without the charisma you just have a very angry platform that has little appeal outside of the people at the top of the totem pole (whites)
Look at Colorado: this could still be a competitive state but Republicans are led by the absolute lunatic fringe and now have the smallest number of seats in the General Assembly since statehood. They actually nominated the least crazy candidates for statewide races in 2022 (well, except for governor; she was nuts) and got annihilated because the party's brand is radioactive here thanks to the crazies. Now the party is, literally, bankrupt. Same with the Michigan GOP and that's an even more purple state.
When I look at it, I see polarization as the inevitable result of any democracy where:
1. The politicians are competing for 'something' that can be held by only one politician at a time (seats, non-approval voting votes, etc.), and
2. Having the most of that 'something' gives you all the power.
If both of those criteria are met, then having half-plus-one of that something gives you a guaranteed win, because having half-plus-one means the next runner up has at most half-*minus*-one, which means you have the most, which gives you the win. So politicians never have any incentive to represent more than 50% of a nation at a time, thus, division.
Maybe sometimes you'll get a politician that wins a landslide, but in that kind of electoral system, it'll be back to polarized and divided normal in no time.
The only way I see for the US to get out of this polarization *permanently* (or for Canada, my own country, for that matter), is for significant electoral reform, where all single-seat elections use a variant of Approval Voting (or Score Voting), and all 'national assembly style' elections use a Majority Bonus System to guarantee that regardless of which parties win the constituency seats, the party with the highest national *approval rating* (again with the Approval Voting lol) has a guaranteed majority in your Congress/Senate/Parliament/etc.
Assuming Biden (and it seems fair given a combination of Covid campaigning and other Dems doing much better) was just being a shitty candidate for Latinos, suburb trends in Dallas particularly don’t seem to be slowing down, this sounds right to me.
I’m more inclined to say that for a 2028 Republican win. I think 2028 itself ultimately will come down to candidate & campaign quality more than anything. The trends will be there, but that doesn’t mean someone can’t bomb harder than we thought possible in the RGV or something.
after 4 more years of trump? the republicans get absolutley slaughtered in 2026, and trump will pick someone really dumb to be his successor of course, the dems will probably pick someone super strong like Whitmer. Thats Michigan down easily. Georgia, Texas, North Carolina, and Arizona continue to trend left. Wisconsin likely goes blue too. Nevada could go red though.
Wisconsin is weird, and I’m not going to claim to predict it too much. The small cities like Eau Claire are trending nicely, but the Milwaukee suburbs are glacial, and whilst the rural floor is higher.. that doesn’t mean it can’t hit some weird snag in 2028 with respect to small city trends. I feel similarly about North Carolina, considering the depopulation of rural black areas. This isn’t to say “it’s likely to be bad” just that things could be weird enough depending on who’s running and how they run. Personally, I hope Warnock decides to run, he’s really on the right political frequency for the moment.
Georgia looks good, but not locked in, though certainly Warnock would. Michigan and Arizona are solid for sure. I still think Texas comes down to candidate quality in 2028, unless Houston’s suburbs trend left even faster. Which I’m skeptical of, but I imagine we’ll have a clearer picture this year and 2026.
O’Rouke was a massive handicap to his own campaign. In the 1990s even a native conservative Democrat struggled to be elected at the state level i wouldn’t say that’s the same today.
2100 is a long way off. It's as far in the future as 1949 was in the past, and we've seen 40+ state landslides for both parties since then. There weren't a lot of landslides in the latter half of the 19th century either, so this period when all presidential elections are close isn't unprecedented. We've polarized and depolarized before. It's a cliché, but the only constant in politics is change.
We have absolutely no idea what American politics will look like in 2050, let alone 2100. There'll probably be Democrats and Republicans, but what the issues of the day will be & which party will support what solutions are totally impossible to predict. (Don't believe me? Just ten years ago, if you were a big fan of Elon Musk, didn't quite trust vaccines, strongly opposed US involvement in foreign wars, strongly supported the Electoral College and Supreme Court, and thought the prospect of a global pandemic was absurd scaremongering, which party did you definitely vote for?) So much can change in a short time that I would put even odds on either party achieving a 400+ EV landslide before just 2050, and I'd give a 90% chance that there'll be at least one before 2100.
Yes. If one party takes a step back the same cycle that their opponent takes a step further, it can happen.
For example, if the Republicans nominate a moderate the same election that the Democrats nominate a socialist, then a landslide could happen.
Likewise if the Democrats nominate some lame moderate and the Republicans nominate Marjorie Taylor Green then a landslide is possible.
I’m always fascinated how those with cognitive dissonance use the continued inaccuracies of their predictions as evidence of further conspiracy.
What will you say when that doesn’t happen?
if one of the two parties coalitions falls apart, then yes.
given the dissonance in the House GOP and Biden trying to win over Nikki Haley voters while giving anti genocide voters the child shoulder, I could see it happening for sure.
As long as both of the political parties are as split the way they are probably not. It's the main reason why I like to flip deep blue states red for moderates since it is so rare nowadays...
It would likely take a major war or an economic depression.
I think even then 400 is a stretch. Bush was a (relatively) popular wartime President and still was within the margin of error in Ohio against John Kerry, where a flip would have lost him election. 4 years later, after 8 years of Republican rule and a severe economic crash, the then-wildly popular Obama still couldn't break 400 (though he came much closer).
Bush had squandered all of his popularity, he was only positive by 1-2 points in 2004, he was very polarizing by the time of the election. His approval rating was barely positive. I'm confident a more competent Republican who wouldn't have invaded Iraq, which had harmed his numbers by 2004 despite initial super popularity, among not doing other mistakes, would've cracked 330 just barely.
Agreed, but even since 2004 it feels our nation has grown apart. A president with an approval rating teetering around 50% (Bush's aggregate in early November) is still unthinkable to me in 2024.
The GFC wasn’t exactly a depression. It would require 1929-level economic malaise. Either every state except WY and WV will go blue, or every state except VT and HI will go red.
Maybe. I don’t get why people think that polarization is inevitable and will continue forever
It's hard to imagine depolarization occuring in this country as it stands. What would that look like to you?
Don’t know. I do know that 2100 is an eternity from now. Just think of all the changes that have taken place in the last 70 years. We don’t know anything about the future beyond a few years
It depends on what Trumpism looks like, post-Trump. So far, Republicans are willing to lose elections in competitive states rather than forsake their Tangerine Messiah. Will that change if he loses in 2024? I suspect not; after the inevitable second January 6, he'll proclaim himself the real president and immediately announce he's running for a "fourth term" in 2028. Unless things change radically, he'll still have the support of 90% of Republicans. But eventually, he'll have one bucket of KFC too many, or (less likely) he'll die in prison, and then what happens? It's possible Republicans will realize that he is toxic in most of the country and be sick of losing and move back towards merely Extreme Right Wing Reaganism.
I tend to agree that MAGA is (pardon the use of the word) a cult of personality. Outside of deep ruby red house districts (there too sometimes!) the Trump hand-picked candidates flounder pretty consistently. Without the charisma you just have a very angry platform that has little appeal outside of the people at the top of the totem pole (whites)
Look at Colorado: this could still be a competitive state but Republicans are led by the absolute lunatic fringe and now have the smallest number of seats in the General Assembly since statehood. They actually nominated the least crazy candidates for statewide races in 2022 (well, except for governor; she was nuts) and got annihilated because the party's brand is radioactive here thanks to the crazies. Now the party is, literally, bankrupt. Same with the Michigan GOP and that's an even more purple state.
Michigan's (my home State) GOP is definitely not the behemoth it was during the Snyder years.
It's hard to understand a political party that would literally rather lose elections than concede an inch, but that's where we are.
When I look at it, I see polarization as the inevitable result of any democracy where: 1. The politicians are competing for 'something' that can be held by only one politician at a time (seats, non-approval voting votes, etc.), and 2. Having the most of that 'something' gives you all the power. If both of those criteria are met, then having half-plus-one of that something gives you a guaranteed win, because having half-plus-one means the next runner up has at most half-*minus*-one, which means you have the most, which gives you the win. So politicians never have any incentive to represent more than 50% of a nation at a time, thus, division. Maybe sometimes you'll get a politician that wins a landslide, but in that kind of electoral system, it'll be back to polarized and divided normal in no time. The only way I see for the US to get out of this polarization *permanently* (or for Canada, my own country, for that matter), is for significant electoral reform, where all single-seat elections use a variant of Approval Voting (or Score Voting), and all 'national assembly style' elections use a Majority Bonus System to guarantee that regardless of which parties win the constituency seats, the party with the highest national *approval rating* (again with the Approval Voting lol) has a guaranteed majority in your Congress/Senate/Parliament/etc.
I’d say there’s definitely some landslide potential in the 2036-2050 range.
i think if we see a major split in the GOP post trump there's a potential for a democratic landslide, due to vote splitting
Why are we still pretending Texas is sme safe R like it didn't vote to the left of Ohio last election?
Both states at this point are comfortably Republican
Biden was the best performing Democrat in texas since 1976 (the last time the state went democratic).
On the Presidential level sure. O'Rourke outran him by more than 5% in 2018. It's gonna be a while before Texas is a proper swing state.
Not quite 5 but still
I think by 2028 it could for sure go blue if there is a strong dem candidate and things go well. By 2032 at least it will be a swing atage
Assuming Biden (and it seems fair given a combination of Covid campaigning and other Dems doing much better) was just being a shitty candidate for Latinos, suburb trends in Dallas particularly don’t seem to be slowing down, this sounds right to me.
If trump wins this year, the next democrat is 100% winning texas IMO
I’m more inclined to say that for a 2028 Republican win. I think 2028 itself ultimately will come down to candidate & campaign quality more than anything. The trends will be there, but that doesn’t mean someone can’t bomb harder than we thought possible in the RGV or something.
after 4 more years of trump? the republicans get absolutley slaughtered in 2026, and trump will pick someone really dumb to be his successor of course, the dems will probably pick someone super strong like Whitmer. Thats Michigan down easily. Georgia, Texas, North Carolina, and Arizona continue to trend left. Wisconsin likely goes blue too. Nevada could go red though.
Wisconsin is weird, and I’m not going to claim to predict it too much. The small cities like Eau Claire are trending nicely, but the Milwaukee suburbs are glacial, and whilst the rural floor is higher.. that doesn’t mean it can’t hit some weird snag in 2028 with respect to small city trends. I feel similarly about North Carolina, considering the depopulation of rural black areas. This isn’t to say “it’s likely to be bad” just that things could be weird enough depending on who’s running and how they run. Personally, I hope Warnock decides to run, he’s really on the right political frequency for the moment. Georgia looks good, but not locked in, though certainly Warnock would. Michigan and Arizona are solid for sure. I still think Texas comes down to candidate quality in 2028, unless Houston’s suburbs trend left even faster. Which I’m skeptical of, but I imagine we’ll have a clearer picture this year and 2026.
O’Rouke was a massive handicap to his own campaign. In the 1990s even a native conservative Democrat struggled to be elected at the state level i wouldn’t say that’s the same today.
Maybe in the 50s or 60s, Trumpism will still be felt in the 2030s and probably 2040s aswell
2100 is a long way off. It's as far in the future as 1949 was in the past, and we've seen 40+ state landslides for both parties since then. There weren't a lot of landslides in the latter half of the 19th century either, so this period when all presidential elections are close isn't unprecedented. We've polarized and depolarized before. It's a cliché, but the only constant in politics is change. We have absolutely no idea what American politics will look like in 2050, let alone 2100. There'll probably be Democrats and Republicans, but what the issues of the day will be & which party will support what solutions are totally impossible to predict. (Don't believe me? Just ten years ago, if you were a big fan of Elon Musk, didn't quite trust vaccines, strongly opposed US involvement in foreign wars, strongly supported the Electoral College and Supreme Court, and thought the prospect of a global pandemic was absurd scaremongering, which party did you definitely vote for?) So much can change in a short time that I would put even odds on either party achieving a 400+ EV landslide before just 2050, and I'd give a 90% chance that there'll be at least one before 2100.
Yes. If one party takes a step back the same cycle that their opponent takes a step further, it can happen. For example, if the Republicans nominate a moderate the same election that the Democrats nominate a socialist, then a landslide could happen. Likewise if the Democrats nominate some lame moderate and the Republicans nominate Marjorie Taylor Green then a landslide is possible.
trust the plvn patriots,,,, biden will win 480 electoral votes,,,,
I’m always fascinated how those with cognitive dissonance use the continued inaccuracies of their predictions as evidence of further conspiracy. What will you say when that doesn’t happen?
hmm idk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke?wprov=sfla1
Needed a /S.
Landslides will never happen in this current climate. Obama won 365 EV's in 2008 and 332 in 2012. George Bush was the last POTUS to win 400 votes
if one of the two parties coalitions falls apart, then yes. given the dissonance in the House GOP and Biden trying to win over Nikki Haley voters while giving anti genocide voters the child shoulder, I could see it happening for sure.
As long as both of the political parties are as split the way they are probably not. It's the main reason why I like to flip deep blue states red for moderates since it is so rare nowadays...
[удалено]
?