Outside of Cook and the surrounding burbs, most of the state is "southern".  The movement doesn't surprise me.

The difference is that Bush didn't really seem to be growing the GOP map in 2004.  The NM win was due to support amongst hispanics, which he did pretty well with.

In 2012, Obama defended pretty much everything and you see clear opportunities for the democrats to further reshape the electoral map going forward.

And that's exactly how the base of the GOP wants it.  They just don't like that they can't win that way.

The GOP could win here more easily if they elected governors during the mid-terms when turnout is down, but they don't.

Also, the sluggish pace at which votes are counted here always seemed fishy going back to 2004.  Gregoire was going to get in no matter what.

Western WA is just growing too strongly right now and faster than eastern WA, similar to Northern vs. Southern/Western VA, although WA is further left.

The GOP is in very poor shape here.  Maybe even worse than WA though, OR does elect it's governors during off years and the republicans still can't win.

I say this..it was pretty much a status quo election with the economy hurting the democrats' performance, which was down from 2008, but the GOP brand is just a miserable brand right now.

The GOP has an outside chance of electing a republican senator with a moderate candidate during a mid-term.  They have almost no chance of doing so in a presidential year and that's why they can't even within the mansion despite the fact that Gov. races are far more non-partisan; they elect governors in presidential years.

Also, the way that the state is setup makes it tough for GOPers to do well there and western WA is becoming more blue and is growing faster.

Again, it's a demographic problem that the party has nobody to blame but themselves.  Knowing people that live in Seattle, they will not for republicans under any circumstance because they want no association with that mess, their social positions, etc.

In presidential races, IL is firmly democratic and it's not even close.  The state still can elect republicans, but in my opinion, only in OFF-YEARS, i.e. midterms, when turnout is down.

Everyone defines it differently and since it's pretty clear that the party has been in "purge" mode of:

1) Moderates
2) Gays
3) Minorities
4) Non-zealous Christians

the remaining bunch can't define what conservative means.  The excuse when they lose, "well the candidate wasn't conservative enough.  What the hell does that mean, other than we screwed up? Sarah Palin actually said the same thing of O'Donnell in the 2010 Senate race and the interviewer literally laughed at her to which Palin actually looked very uncomfortable.

While one party clearly can't define the word conservative, the other party seems to have an open invitation to everyone across the spectrum and no matter what your race, religion, orientation, age, background, etc.

Again, I didn't say he was going to win both states either way, but he should have made Romney play just a little defense to get him away from the other states that the election was played in.

The president could have spent millions in both states and still would have lost, but the electoral college is about offense/(defense) and the president played 100% D this year, which is not where you want to be.

FL is becoming another demographic problem for the republicans and they're too dumb to realize it. 

It's a true toss-up at this point that will become more democratic as time progresses until the GOP opens up to minorities.

And what I mean is, is this is what the GOP is perceived to be nationwide? Obviously democrats have put out their share of losers too, but it's embarrassing about some of these candidates and if the GOP is looking to win over young voters and minorities, these people are not the way to go. 

It potentially leaves the national image of, "I want absolutely nothing to do with the party that supports these people in the primary"

Never really heard much about Johnson, even after he entered the race. I'm not shocked though.

Amazing as the polls moved, the ultimate result was exactly to where the polls were prior to the debate where Romney clearly "won" and the president appeared out of it and flustered.

Perhaps the popular vote shifted somewhat, but it never made a dent in the electoral margin.  Similar to Bush in 2004, the 2nd/3rd debates seemed key for the president where he stabilized the campaign and went back on the offensive. 

There were thoughts of a 1980-type movement, etc but it didn't play out that way.

What a huge victory for democrats in FL and I'm happy.  They had a big night there, picking up a few house seats too.

50.01% looks and feels better than 49.9%.

The guy legitimately cares. You can tell.  McCain was the same way.  I never got that feeling from Romney and so many others in office and that seek office.

Georgia and Arizona first.

Where are you seeing the president >50% now? Every site I've seen, including him here has him just below.

I predicted only NC, IN and NE-2 would change and I was right. I knew the hispanic vote would be the difference in FL and the changes in the I-4 Corridor favored the president.

I'm not shocked he won FL. 

I thought PA would be a bigger margin than it turned out to be.

Obviously, it would have been in a losing cause, but the president played a bit of a dangerous game by letting the election be played in most of his own states rather than forcing Romney to worry at least about some others, which were playable, if not winnable this round.

GA is another opportunity for the democrats going forward with the growing suburbs outside of Atlanta and the youth vote.  Romney's win there was unimpressive this time and very little improvement from 2008. 

AZ seems to be the last state holding back from the political change due to the hispanic movement, largely because of the immigration reform issue.  In addition, statewide republicans there seem better organized than the democrats.  Surrounding states like CO and NV are becoming bluer each year and with McCain winning his own state by just 8 points there last time, I'm surprised the president didn't put some pressure on the republicans.

Going forward, I think these are the next two states that the republicans are on their way to losing their grip over if they don't fix their demographical problem.

Don't overestimate the VP choice.  One thing I believe that hasn't changed is that people in general don't vote for VP.  They vote for president.  Gore was a great choice for Clinton in '92, Quayle was a nightmare in '88, but people vote the top of the ticket. 

Could Rubio have made any difference? Possibly.  Also, Romney will never say if he asked someone else before Ryan and they said "no". 

Lastly, it's very rare to lose the campaign as a VP candidate on the ticket and maintain your popularity.  I personally think Paul Ryan will take a hit concerning his image going forward.  He added very little to the overall campaign.

Who was the Republican Strategist interviewed by Brian Williams on NBC who basically said that the campaign was a loser campaign and that it was completely mishandled, mismanaged and really seemed out of touch?

I was shocked to hear him say that because strategists usually give political nonsense when asked difficult questions.  When Brian Williams asked him about the GOP's performance on Tues in general, the guy basically said, "we ran a bunch of losers this year and we completely mismanaged the electorate and changes in the American population" (paraphrased)

Very interesting.

The point of this is that "perception can be reality" in the minds of others, whether or not it's factual. 

I think Romney's problem was obvious..."the top 5%", Bain Capital executive.  At the start of the primary, especially in a bad economy, we all knew he was going to have quite the challenge in reaching the middle class and connecting because of his past there and the PERCEPTION of who he is.

Had it been Santorum, then the right-wing Christian issue and social conservative point would have brought him to the floor.

See where I'm going? It also begs to ask, if you're a new voter (youth vote) in this country, do you want to associate with any of that?

Answer the question.  You failed to do so.  Perhaps defensiveness means "yes?".  If you disagree, explain.

FL is a very underrated win for the democrats this year, but I saw it coming, largely because of the MINORITY vote, which like other states (i.e. VA, CO, etc) is making it tougher and tougher for republicans to win.

Like '08, it seemed like FL was setup for Romney to win, but Obama got it again.

I've now heard this from several people and if you can get past the somewhat demeaning term/stereotypes, I think there is some validity to this.

The GOP party and who they cater to for the most part:

1) Christians
2) Rednecks
3) Top 5%

Is that all they have? Have they narrowed themselves that greatly? If so, the party is in deep, deep trouble.  If you notice, one thing that is consistently true, is that when the GOP tends to win, they come in down years where turnout is down (i.e. Midterms), but in presidential years now, when turnout is up, particularly with minorities, forget about it. 2004 was somewhat different in that the Senate pickups where fueled by the location of the seats.

Again, maybe it's pathetic to write this, but the party seems to be thought of as:

1) The Bible Belters living in the past who can't accept change for their lives
2) Uneducated people
3) Big corporations that cut people and then pay bonuses to execs for making the numbers, regardless of how they got there.

Am I wrong?