Canada: Big Get For Democrats

Donald Trump says Canada should become the 51st state. He should be careful what he wishes for.

No, it’s (probably?) not a serious idea, but the president-elect keeps trolling the United States’ ally to the north about becoming the next state in the union. On Monday, after Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced he will step down, Trump posted on social media that “many people in Canada LOVE being the 51st State.” And he doubled down on Tuesday. (Trudeau didn’t take it well.)

So after weeks of this recurring bit, Score decided to take Trump literally, not seriously: What are the immediate political implications of Canada becoming part of the United States?

The answer, our analysis found, is that Democrats would benefit significantly, with the new great state of Canada serving as a kind of second California, a massive blue state that would hold dozens of House seats and create a huge Democratic advantage in the Electoral College.

Canada would be solidly blue, and we're not just talking about the temperature: An informal survey of our colleagues in the Great White North — subscribe to Ottawa Playbook! — found they were confident their countrymen would vote for Democrats, and a hypothetical preelection poll found Canadians overwhelmingly siding with Kamala Harris over Trump.

With Canada secured, Democrats would need to win just two battleground states in the 2028 presidential election. (That doesn’t make the White House a sure thing: Trump would have still defeated Harris in 2024 even with Canada in the union, since she lost every battleground.)

Let’s run some numbers.

The Senate is easiest: Canada would get two senators, and given its overall liberal politics there’s little question they’d be Democrats. That would shrink Republicans’ margin from the current Congress slightly: There would be 53 Republicans and 49 Democrats in the Senate. Republicans would be able to afford two defections, with Vice President-elect JD Vance breaking a 51-51 tie.

The House is more complicated (and fun). Keeping the chamber at 435 members, reapportionment would give Canada 45 seats. That’d be just one fewer than California, which would have 46 seats.

In total, 31 states would lose seats to Canada. California would lose six; Texas would lose four; Florida would lose three; New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina would lose two each; and two dozen would each lose one seat.

That would almost certainly boost Democrats’ numbers in the House, but it’s impossible to know to what extent, because of redistricting. A blue state can lose a red seat and vice versa, and some of Canada’s 45 districts would be Republican. Aggressive gerrymandering by either party could significantly shift the outcomes.

The migration of House seats to Canada would also mean a significant shift in the Electoral College, reshaping presidential elections.

Right now, blue states make up 226 electoral votes, red states make up 219, and the seven battlegrounds — Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona — have 93.

With Canada’s 47 electoral votes (45 House seats + 2 senators), Democrats would enter an election with 253 seats, Republicans would have 202, and there’d be 85 up for grabs.

The Democratic nominee would need just 18 electoral votes to get to 271 and clinch a majority of what are now 540 votes in the Electoral College. That would require a minimum of just two battlegrounds, while Republicans would need to win at least five.

That’s a daunting disadvantage for Republicans, but not an insurmountable one. Trump, after all, would still have won.

But 2028 would sure be interesting — especially once Greenland becomes the 52nd state.

This story first appeared in the Morning Score newsletter. Want to receive this newsletter every weekday? Subscribe to POLITICO Pro. You’ll also receive daily policy news and other intelligence you need to act on the day’s biggest stories.