If a Democrat wins in 2008, which state(s) will still move to the right?

[danwxman]

Kinda like Vermont still moved even further left in 2004...if a Democrat wins in 2008, which states will continue to move right against the national average?

[A18]

Some southern states, probably.

[Rob]

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Oklahoma.

[A18]

I'm thinking Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi.

[Rob]

Except for Florida, it will be hard for the GOP to increase their percentages in the Deep South due to the large black populations(although they will remain solidly Republican).

[Alcon]

None really stand out. The south is sort of at its Republican maximum, with blacks being the only reason those states don't go like 70-30.

Based on history, Montana and South Dakota might be suggestions (anti-incumbnent), but I think a candidate like Bayh actually could do much better in both states, although I seriously doubt Kerry them.

People keep posting so I will respond here.

Idaho: Some areas of Idaho actually moved leftwards here. The non-Mormon areas feel mildly threatened by the highly Mormon politics in the south. A moderate candidate could flip a few counties. Blaine County is the only reliably Democratic area in the state. A few cities like Coeur d'Alene are showing tiny signs of liberalization. Still a solid GOP state. I doubt much rightward movement.

Montana: Missoula was a solid Bush area in 2000, partially but not entirely because of the Nader vote. It has now flipped entirely. Montana actually is a very moderate-libertarian state, and they are surprisingly not in love with the Republican Party - they even elect non-conservative Democrats. It might move rightwards, but not much, and certainly if a Democrat won it would probably be closer, unless it was a populist Democrat versus a libertarian Republican.

Wyoming: Teton County is becoming more liberal. With Cheney off the ballot, it might be closer. A conservative libertarian state that will go for a more libertarian candidate against a populist, although not as much as Montana. (When I say go for them, I mean give an improval to vs. Kerry - not carry, obviously.)

Oklahoma: In 2000, Gore carried nine counties in Oklahoma and almost half of the counties were significantly closer. Kerry got no counties. It is harder to do worse than that in Oklahoma.

Georgia: Unless the Atlanta vote goes down significantly, Republicans will not break 60% in Georgia. A look at the population map relative to the result map will show that it would be hard for Bush to do better - they are solidly in control of every major city, except for Savannah and Atlanta, as well as a few others. The outer Atlanta suburbs might help them, though. Watch the suburbs in 2008.

Florida: I really don't know, truthfully. Did Bush's hurricane help do wonders? Could Richardson as VP get the Hispanic vote? In any case, I doubt the GOP could do better in Florida while still losing.

South Carolina: It depends on the black vote, but I see some opportunity for the GOP to break 60%.

Alabama: The GOP could improve their standing in the urban areas that they already have by narrow margins, but 65% is a hard barrier to break in any state with a notable black population.

Mississippi: The black vote is a major thing here. The 60% barrier wouldn't be impossible to break even during a loss, but if the Democrat is a populist, it's hopeless.

[DanielX]

Utah. Believe it or not it's trending Republican.

[7,052,770]

With 40% of our population black, Mississippi's about maxed out on how Republican we can get.
The other Southern states can go farther though.

[Tender Branson]

This topic was started before Katrina hit New Orleans, but I can now say that LA will trend more GOP next year even if Clinton/Obama wins the presidency. LA was about the only state in the 2006 midterms, that went more Republican compared with 2004, going from 62% to 63% Republican in the combined congressional vote and with Jindal winning the governorship this year with 60% or more I´d say Clinton/Obama will get less than or about 40% next year.

Plus: Wasn´t there a student from LA not long ago who tried to assassinate Clinton ?

[DownWithTheLeft]

Lousiana obviously, followed by chances in FL, MI, NJ, and VT.  Moving right does not mean winning the state

[Jaggerjack]

Lousiana obviously, followed by chances in FL, MI, NJ, and VT.  Moving right does not mean winning the state

Lol at Vermont

[DownWithTheLeft]

Lousiana obviously, followed by chances in FL, MI, NJ, and VT.  Moving right does not mean winning the state

Lol at Vermont

The state has really maxed out on how far left it can go, it will still go Dem in 2008 but especially in a Rudy-Edwards race it shifts right

[Jaggerjack]

Lousiana obviously, followed by chances in FL, MI, NJ, and VT.  Moving right does not mean winning the state

Lol at Vermont

The state has really maxed out on how far left it can go, it will still go Dem in 2008 but especially in a Rudy-Edwards race it shifts right

The state's really still trending away from the Republicans (just like Oklahoma, Texas, Tennessee, etc. are still trending away from the Democrats)

[DownWithTheLeft]

Lousiana obviously, followed by chances in FL, MI, NJ, and VT.  Moving right does not mean winning the state

Lol at Vermont

The state has really maxed out on how far left it can go, it will still go Dem in 2008 but especially in a Rudy-Edwards race it shifts right

The state's really still trending away from the Republicans (just like Oklahoma, Texas, Tennessee, etc. are still trending away from the Democrats)

The state has a core conservative support that still exists, the mass migration of liberals is slowing down and the migration in of conservatives is at a higher pace, Vermont will be more Republican in 2008, I'd be willing to guarantee it

[Jaggerjack]

Lousiana obviously, followed by chances in FL, MI, NJ, and VT.  Moving right does not mean winning the state

Lol at Vermont

The state has really maxed out on how far left it can go, it will still go Dem in 2008 but especially in a Rudy-Edwards race it shifts right

The state's really still trending away from the Republicans (just like Oklahoma, Texas, Tennessee, etc. are still trending away from the Democrats)

The state has a core conservative support that still exists, the mass migration of liberals is slowing down and the migration in of conservatives is at a higher pace, Vermont will be more Republican in 2008, I'd be willing to guarantee it

Dude... Look at the 2000-2004 results for Vermont and compare. It's really only Essex County that still has a significant Republican prescence.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

It really depends on who winds up running, I don't think you can come up with a good answer to that yet...

That aside...New Jersey moves right even more if Rudy runs (he still won't win it)

Utah goes maybe 75% for Romney if he gets it (along with Idaho)

I don't think the Clintons were ever very popular in Colorado...so it's not as close as last time

....you can make some assumptions, but until we know the nominees, these are all just guesses

[Lief 🗽]

Romney moves Idaho, Utah and Wyoming to the right, and causes the Democratic swing in Arizona and Nevada to be less than it usually would be.

Rudy probably does slightly better in the Northeast, though I don't think this would counter-act a Democratic swing do the anti-war feeling in the region.

[jokerman]

DWDL might be on to something with Vermont, though.  I can't see Vermonters being very enthusiastic about a Clinton candidacy.

[Jaggerjack]

DWDL might be on to something with Vermont, though.  I can't see Vermonters being very enthusiastic about a Clinton candidacy.

Can you see them being very enthusiatic about a Romney or Giuliani presidency?

[jokerman]

DWDL might be on to something with Vermont, though.  I can't see Vermonters being very enthusiastic about a Clinton candidacy.

Can you see them being very enthusiatic about a Romney or Giuliani presidency?

The former is irrelevant because he won't win the nomination and, yes, I can see a number of moderate Vermonters voting for Giuliani.  He wouldn't even come close to winning, of course, but might improve from Bush's 2004 performance.

[Verily]

DWDL might be on to something with Vermont, though.  I can't see Vermonters being very enthusiastic about a Clinton candidacy.

Can you see them being very enthusiatic about a Romney or Giuliani presidency?

The former is irrelevant because he won't win the nomination and, yes, I can see a number of moderate Vermonters voting for Giuliani.  He wouldn't even come close to winning, of course, but might improve from Bush's 2004 performance.

You are far too fast to dismiss Romney's chance at the GOP nomination. He can't win a lot of the Deep South in the primaries, but ultimately he doesn't need to--winning Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and Wyoming will be enough momentum.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Alcon is right, I think Oklahoma is about as far right as it can go, so I think no matter what happens it will start trending slightly left due to the lack of space on the right end.  I'm not as gung-ho about Oklahoma swinging hard left as I was earlier this year, but I think it will trend ever-so-slightly left or hold steady.  Vermont is a state I can see trending ever-so-slightly right simply because there's no more room on the left.  Take this for what its worth, but I can see California trending ever-so-slightly right.  I don't know what gives me that feeling, just gut instinct, i imagine, so there is really no basis for that, but feel free to discuss California.

[Jaggerjack]

Alcon is right, I think Oklahoma is about as far right as it can go, so I think no matter what happens it will start trending slightly left due to the lack of space on the right end.  I'm not as gung-ho about Oklahoma swinging hard left as I was earlier this year, but I think it will trend ever-so-slightly left or hold steady.  Vermont is a state I can see trending ever-so-slightly right simply because there's no more room on the left.  Take this for what its worth, but I can see California trending ever-so-slightly right.  I don't know what gives me that feeling, just gut instinct, i imagine, so there is really no basis for that, but feel free to discuss California.

Nope. California's still trending away from the Republicans.

[Tender Branson]

DWDL might be on to something with Vermont, though.  I can't see Vermonters being very enthusiastic about a Clinton candidacy.

Can you see them being very enthusiatic about a Romney or Giuliani presidency?

The former is irrelevant because he won't win the nomination and, yes, I can see a number of moderate Vermonters voting for Giuliani.  He wouldn't even come close to winning, of course, but might improve from Bush's 2004 performance.

You are far too fast to dismiss Romney's chance at the GOP nomination. He can't win a lot of the Deep South in the primaries, but ultimately he doesn't need to--winning Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and Wyoming will be enough momentum.

I agree. Romney now leads in IA, NH and I suppose in Wyoming too. He´s gaining in SC and is positioned well in NV. The only state he sucks in is FL right now, but it is after SC anyway. Romney may be the GOP´s man in 2008 if Giuliani is not able to win in FL and the Supertuesday or Thompson in the SC or FL primary ...

[politicaltipster]

A UNS model extremely well for Bush's share of the total vote in 2004. The reason why it didn't work so well for Kerry's vote (or for the 2 party vote) was because the collapse of Nader's vote benefitted the Dems disproportinately. This led to the fact that Kerry's vote fell by less than W's vote went up - and in a few states where Nader had been strong in 2000, there was a swing to Kerry.