Redistricting: Why the Democrats Need a New Coalition Post 2030

In this episode, the hosts discuss the profound implications of redistricting and its anticipated impact on future U.S. elections, particularly post-2030. They delve into population movements towards red states and the consequent shift in electoral votes which may disadvantage Democrats. The conversation explores how demographic and cultural shifts affect voting patterns, particularly among minority communities. The hosts also examine the internal challenges facing the Democratic Party, such as their exclusionary approaches, which complicate coalition-building. They consider potential paths and strategies Democrats might pursue to stay competitive, including appealing to new voter groups and addressing pertinent issues like job loss due to AI. The dialogue is rounded out with personal anecdotes and a light-hearted discussion on family dynamics and dinner plans.

Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello, Simone. Now, many of you watching might be aware of the current phenomenon going on in the United States. It makes it nearly impossible for Democrats to win elections after the 2030s. This is due to something called redistricting, in which as voters move to red states blue states lose votes because the number of votes you get in a presidential election and in Congress is based on your population.

Well. Turns out nobody wants to live in blue states anymore. They've for a long time. And these states are lower fertility anyway.

Simone Collins: Well, this also reminds me of that stat that showed that minority populations, like non-white populations that live in red districts versus blue districts have higher income.

Like all these measures that were way better, like, oh, in

Malcolm Collins: contrast it with white populations, actually everyone typically has lower income in red states. Just for clarification. But that's because the urban monoculture prefers to grow in environments where it can [00:01:00] harvest more money. So it focuses on wealthy cities and stuff like that.

But you're right about that. They're like relatively less racist in the implications of their policy than belief states.

Simone Collins: And while we, you're as consequentialist, we care about outcomes, you know, if they're thriving more in red districts, I would say red districts create better outcomes for minorities.

Malcolm Collins: Right. But so in this episode you, you've probably heard of this or you're broadly aware of it, but I want to both go into the specifics of this and go into scenarios about what it means to actually win an election. Like I. What are you actually going to win? How does it change, which states or swing states and how does it change what Democrats need to do to win elections going forward?

Okay. While also arguing that this is just gonna be incredibly hard for them to pull off and they'll likely need some new form of a coalition to. Win elections going forwards. And I don't know what that coalition's gonna look like. But what's interesting about the way the Democrats have built their coalition is it's entirely exclusionary recently.

It's either you [00:02:00] support trans people or you're totally out. Either like, as we've said, like all you need to do is disagree on one thing and you're not a de at all anymore. Like a JK Rowling is a Damon every single way, but like. Trans issues. And she's like a demon, right? Like Elon was like every single way, but like trans issue, demon.

And now he's like on the right, you know, like, so even if you like, just disagree on like the. The dumb thing, you point out the giant mole on their face. You know, it ends up causing you to be exercised from their culture. So,

Simone Collins: yeah.

Malcolm Collins: I mean, just

Simone Collins: wait. You make the tiniest wrong move when you're out.

That's the really scary thing.

Malcolm Collins: It's very hard. Basically they need to find a new group to protect it, sort of the way their culture is structured. But who would that be? It could only be. Religious conservatives, but, but, you know, say, oh, well, we'll protect your children, but then that would upset the Chinese people and the, you know, so I don't know what they're gonna do, but, we'll, we'll move on that at the end of this, but let's just go into the stats here to start.

Okay? Okay. Based on population projections for the [00:03:00] 2030 census, certain states are expected to gain house seats due to population groups, primarily in the south and west. Okay. Votes. Equals its number of house seats plus two for its senator who increase in house seats directly increases electoral votes.

The states gaining electoral votes along with the number of votes are Texas plus four, Florida plus four Arizona plus one Utah plus one. North Carolina plus one Utah plus one total of electoral votes gained 12. Conversely, states with population decline or slower goes, particularly in the Northeast and Midwest, as well as California, are projected to lose house seats, thus electoral voters.

The states that are gonna lose them are California minus four, New York, minus two, Illinois minus one, Minnesota minus one, Oregon minus one. Pennsylvania minus one Rhode Island, minus one Wisconsin minus one. More critically projection [00:04:00] suggests that by 2030 Democrats rely on their. Safely Democratic states, eg.

California and New York. Plus the Blue Wall states, Pennsylvania and Michigan and Wisconsin and Nebraska's Second district one vote. They would secure only 258 votes falling 12 votes short of the two 70. They need to win a presidency. So if Democrats just win what they historically considered, like the safe path to victory, they will not win under the new system.

So I wanna, you know, just, just put that out there again. So even if Democrats win Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and Nebraska behalf of Nebraska, they still wouldn't win the cycle.

Simone Collins: Oh my gosh.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. That's not great. Okay. To reach 270 electoral votes on the 2030 map, Democrats must win additional swing states [00:05:00] beyond the blue wall, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, to make up the 12 vote deficit.

The electoral vote counts for swing states under the 2030. Projections are Arizona Georgia, North Carolina or Nevada. So if they win any of these, they would win if, if they won those, like Pennsylvania and whatever. But I actually think winning Pennsylvania is gonna be increasingly hard.

And we're gonna go into that in just a second, but like, if Pennsylvania gets harder to win, we're gonna go over just how hard it gets for them to, to win elections. Possible collections of additional swing states to reach or exceed. 12 electoral votes include Arizona alone, Georgia alone, North Carolina alone, Arizona plus Nevada.

This is assuming Pennsylvania and Michigan and Wisconsin. Now let's see what happens if they lose pa, that's where we live is Pennsylvania. And I know that there's been some major changes in Pennsylvania in the last election cycle, specifically Scott Presler Gay Hero ended up, radicalizing, the Amish, who historically didn't vote, the Amish basically said, well, [00:06:00] we won't vote, we won't get involved in politics, and we won't become politicized because we don't want the system to attack us when, you know, the wrong party's in power.

And what the Amish realized, and Scott Presler convinced him of this is actually the system's attacking you right now, and we'll continue to attack you because it needs your kids to survive. The progressives aren't having kids and they get kids from you, so. You should join up with this Trump guy.

He'll protect your rights. And they