Red/Blue State Map for 2012

[Holmes]

Blame Florida! Blame Palm Beach County! We should all send them intimidating letters to show our disdain!

[aaaa2222]

Revision. Texas is staying REPUBLICAN.

[pbrower2a]

Obama's ceiling next election:

Wow.  Seriously now..

New Mexico is more Democratic-leaning than Arizona even without the Favorite Son effect that will be irrelevant  in 2012. No way is either Dakota more than a bare win for Obama, and Texas would be at most a squeaker for him. Iowa and Wisconsin would not be squeakers. I figure that some right-winger will challenge for some conservative votes and snip off a few to the detriment of the Republican Party nominee.

Who wins the Republican nomination will decide what sort of victory Obama has. 

[minionofmidas]

Atlas' color scheme fails again.

I'll never understand why so many prefer it.

It's because so many are sane.

[You kip if you want to...]

Pennsylvania, Michigan and Minnesota were all democratic by more than four points above the national average. I would change them. Also, Texas should be red, it went Republican by 11 points. I don't care what the DNC says, that's staying red.

I'll probably get alot of "2012 isn't 2008" stuff for this, and I know it's a smaller state, but if Indiana can see an 11-point swing then so can Texas.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Great First Term (Approvals >65)

Good First Term (Approvals 55-65):/b]

Average First Term (Approvals 45-55)

Below Average First Term (Approvals 35-45)

Awful First Term (Approvals <35)

[Boris]

If Obama's approval rating was higher than 65%, he would win all fifty states. He would probably lose somewhere between 1-10 states if his approval ratings are in the high 50s. Exception might be Clinton in 1996 but that election is somewhat skewered because of Ross Perot, no one really caring, and Clinton's personal favorability being much lower than his job approval.

And likewise, if Obama's approval rating was below 40-45%, he would have a tough time getting renominated as well as winning any state except DC.

[pbrower2a]

No net change in national support, with no major regional shifts of support. In effect, 2012 is much like 2008 politically:

In essence Obama loses Indiana and North Carolina but picks up Missouri and Arizona. That means that Obama has met the expectations of his supporters and done little to gain support elsewhere. What he gains (even in demographic changes) in one hand he loses in another.

Effects of demographic change alone:

Ho-hum!

An imaginable gain -- a big one -- arises if he should be able to address structural poverty as a Great National Concern.  To be sure, structural poverty has been a Third Rail of American politics since at least 1980, Democrats not reminding likely voters of its hazards to public life and Republicans staying quiet about it for fear of seeming even more callow than they are. Poor non-white people vote heavily Democratic, but poor white people vote heavily Republican... and if Obama should win back the poor white vote that Democratic politicians used to assume theirs:

 

Poor people are heavily concentrated in the South (including Appalachia) ... and most poor people are white.

[tmthforu94]

Going into the election, I expect the RCP map to be something like this, assuming Obama has an average first term.

[pbrower2a]

Going into the election, I expect the RCP map to be something like this, assuming Obama has an average first term.

Reasonable under the assumptions. Of course it is not a good position for the Republican nominee, as it gives him (or her if Sarah Palin) four roughly fifty-fifty chances of winning states that clinch the election. The Republican candidate then has roughly 1 chance in 16 of winning without picking off PA, WI(??), IA, or NH.

That would practically define an "average" term, one that attracts serious candidates who have real chances of winning.   

[tmthforu94]

Going into the election, I expect the RCP map to be something like this, assuming Obama has an average first term.

Reasonable under the assumptions. Of course it is not a good position for the Republican nominee, as it gives him (or her if Sarah Palin) four roughly fifty-fifty chances of winning states that clinch the election. The Republican candidate then has roughly 1 chance in 16 of winning without picking off PA, WI(??), IA, or NH.

That would practically define an "average" term, one that attracts serious candidates who have real chances of winning.   

That's what I meant it as. Obama has 269 votes under this setup, of course, electoral votes will change then. Do you know how to change state electoral vote count on here? Because I see others who have it changed.

[anvi]

To change the electoral vote count on a map:

1.  go into "evcalc" on the tab at the top of the page, and fill out your map as you wish
     as usual
2.  after filling out the map, click the "show map link" button as usual
3.  look through the list of states and change the electoral vote count for a state as projected
  (example): if you project that Virginia will have 14 instead of 13 electoral votes in
                    the next election, change VA=2;13;5 to VA=2;14;5
4.  when finished, copy and paste the map link into your message as usual and post the map.

[pbrower2a]

Going into the election, I expect the RCP map to be something like this, assuming Obama has an average first term.

Reasonable under the assumptions. Of course it is not a good position for the Republican nominee, as it gives him (or her if Sarah Palin) four roughly fifty-fifty chances of winning states that clinch the election. The Republican candidate then has roughly 1 chance in 16 of winning without picking off PA, WI(??), IA, or NH.

That would practically define an "average" term, one that attracts serious candidates who have real chances of winning.   

That's what I meant it as. Obama has 269 votes under this setup, of course, electoral votes will change then. Do you know how to change state electoral vote count on here? Because I see others who have it changed.

Some have estimates of how congressional districts will be allocated after the 2010 Census... a Census about a year away from being done. In any event, nobody has a precise estimate for the results of the US Census. States losing population or not growing will probably lose congressional representatives and those growing faster will gain congressional seats. In general the Rust Belt is losing and the Sunbelt is gaining.

I guess that the States that voted for Obama by at least 9% (double digits + IA + NH)  will account for somewhere between 261 and 265 electoral votes in 2012 -- probably toward the low end.  That is my guess and it has no other authority.

Colorado, Arizona, Ohio, Virginia, and Florida (which I think 50-50, but I can work with your model) all clinch re-election for Obama. I'm not going to discuss Indiana or Missouri (Obama doesn't win it without winning Ohio), North Carolina (Virginia goes to Obama more easily), Georgia (North Carolina and Florida are more likely); neither am I going to discuss Montana beyond saying that it won't be enough on its own. Easy calculations of probability require independent and relevant events, and if I were to count Florida as having a 50/50 chance of going for Obama in 2012, then I would give the Republican nominee a 1/64 chance.  Contemplation of how Obama could win by picking up a combination of Montana and the Dakotas is premature in the extreme, so I make no estimate of that.

I'll make slight modifications to your map to fit the facts that I see:

Those changes largely reflect Florida. Montana, West Virginia, and one district in Nebraska probably don't matter, and if I am to keep Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Iowa "pink" then I must fade those other states a little; Indiana, Missouri, and North Carolina are added layers of frosting on a victory cake for Obama should he win even one "gray" state.

.....

Can Barack Obama get complacent about the prospect of re-election? Hardly. He has some legitimate achievements to show and the duty to avoid catastrophic errors of judgment (including scandals, especially sex because of his ethnicity). He needs a modicum of luck to avoid becoming the new Herbert Hoover; he could preside over an abortive upturn in the economy followed by a fresh collapse at the worst possible time.

My predictions of Obama winning or losing a State are estimates. One of the easiest and blandest predictions that anyone can make is that if Obama satisfied the sorts of people who voted for him but does nothing to move the rest, then he is likely to win basically the same states that he won in 2008. Heck, Dubya accomplished that (if at a lower level) and he won by a similar margin in 2004 as in 2000 (even if many Americans hated him instead of simply disliking him) and Clinton did much the same in 1996.

I predict that Obama will carry Arizona if he is as successful in 2012 as in 2008 because John McCain won the state by a margin less than that that a Favorite Son usually carries it. The pro-GOP effects of a Favorite Son will be reversed in 2012 in Arizona. I also recognize, as you do, that Obama is more likely to win Arizona than Indiana because the odd circumstances that allowed Obama to win Indiana won't be replicated. If Obama wins Indiana in 2012, then that suggests a 400-EV landslide.

The only credible GOP candidate who comes from any swing state and has a chance of wining it is Charlie Crist...  If Crist is the GOP nominee for President in 2012, then the GOP wins Florida.

What else can I predict? Demographic trends in the electorate. The Hispanic electorate is growing very fast and it has been strongly Democratic in 2008, and the youth vote is strongly Democratic. Such establishes Nevada and New Mexico likely to be obvious holds for the Democratic Party -- perhaps even stronger holds than for example Wisconsin or Pennsylvania. An electorate getting more voters born between 1990 and 1994 is likely to flip some states that were close... but not many (most likely Missouri, Montana, and just maybe Georgia).

What can't I predict? Scandals. The business cycle. Terrorist acts. Wars. Gaffes. Legislative failure and success. If the commie regime in Cuba falls, then does one of the usual GOP appeals to Cuban-Americans in Florida fall, too? Neither can I predict the possibility that Obama could make electoral appeals that reach poor white people in the southern United States; I just can't predict that such will not happen. Obama will be absolutely unable to do anything for poor blacks without doing similar good for poor whites, too, and poverty is heavily concentrated in the South, one of the two areas in which he got clobbered in 2008. I just can't figure why poor whites who used to support the Democratic Party in the South have such diametric interests from those of poor blacks. Should he do appreciable good for Southern blacks, he just might end up picking enough white votes to win a landslide in 2012.

(In my opinion, the alleviation of poverty is a fitting objective of any politician even if poverty is a political "third rail" because many voters don't want to hear about it. Poverty has intensified over the last thirty years, and it won't mitigate itself out of existence or into a benign state through methods used in recent years).