Indications are that Democrats are starting to gain support in both the Southeast (North Carolina, Georgia) and the Southwest (Arizona), and are running even in Florida and Texas, and keeping their lead in Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada.
If this trend continues, the Midwest Rust Belt states (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania), while still important, will be less significant in future Presidential elections.
And it looks as if many of the Senate seats that are being decided this November will end up with a Democratic Senator–as in North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico.
The electoral map in future elections will be vastly different than it has been in previous election rounds.
Ronald writes, “The electoral map in future elections will be vastly different than it has been in previous election rounds.â€
If Election 2020 ends up a Democratic pickup of the presidency, it will mean the Democrats will have won three of the four election cycles of 2008 to 2020.
Since 1800, we have been living in realigning periods in which a given political party wins dominantly with the presidency of the United States.
No party which won three of four cycles failed to experience a realigning presidential period in favor of their party. So, given we do not have an unlimited number of states, of course this does affect the electoral map.
A reminder of the realigning periods (with today’s two major U.S. political parties):
• 1860–1892 Republican (Abraham Lincoln): 7 of 9 cycles.
• 1896–1928 Republican (William McKinley): 7 of 9 cycles.
• 1932–1964 Democratic (Franklin Roosevelt): 7 of 9 cycles.
• 1968–2004 Republican (Richard Nixon): 7 of 10 cycles.
• 2008–20xx Democratic (Barack Obama): Pending.
“The electoral map in future elections†should be carefully considered with not only any re-shaping of the map (states normally aligned to one party gradually trending toward the other) but also with recognizing particular states reliably carried during a given realigning period.
This is once again referring to that topic of bellwether states. But, it can be very interesting if a state operates as a bellwether especially during a given realigning period.
Since the Republicans first won in 1860, and through 2016, we have had 40 election cycles. Here were those applicable bellwether states.
• 1860–1892 Republican: No state was perfect but Indiana performed 8 for 9 and carried for one popular-vote winner. (Score: 8.5-for-9 and 94.44%.)
• 1896–1928 Republican: New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Ohio were carried in all cycles. (Score: 9-for-9 and 100%.)
• 1932–1964 Democratic: Massachusetts, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Texas were carried in all cycles. (Score: 9-for-9 and 100%.)
• 1968–2004 Republican: Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, and Tennessee were carried in all cycles. (Score: 10-for-10 and 100%.)
• 2008–20xx Democratic: Given this is the current period in history, and Election 2020 will be the fourth consecutive cycle, the possibility is with six states (so far each has a record of 3-for-3 and 100%): Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
During different realigning periods, we had some different involved states. When you consider the 2008–20xx Democratic realignment period of bellwether states, with three cycles so far, and a fourth one coming up, most of these applicable states are in the Midwest and Rust Belt. So, when you take into consideration their records (so far), I have to disagree with Ronald’s assertion, “If this trend continues, the Midwest Rust Belt states (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania), while still important, will be less significant in future Presidential elections.†I think they will become even more significant.
Hmmm, interesting observation, D, and I have high respect for your insights!
What I meant was that IF the Democrats can win the Southeast and Southwest states or many of them, the electoral votes of the Rust Belt Midwest will NOT matter as much, as far as Presidential victory.
I am not denying that these states are significant, as of course they are, but in the whole scheme of things, might be LESS important!