Is this map a realistic possibility in 2016?

[Cryptic]

Map #1: Yes. It's just 2012 with North Carolina going Democratic, so certainly believable.

Map #2: No. It would take Cruz or Carson being the Republican nominee and that won't happen.

Map #3: Yes. All the GOP pickups are battleground states, so certainly possible with a strong GOP candidate coupled with some screw-up impacting the Democrats.

Map #4: No. Even with the most conservative Democrat and liberal Republican running on their party tickets, I don't see this happening.

Map #5: No. It's rare for even one independent/third party candidate to get seriously noticed. Last one was Perot in '92 and even then he didn't win a single EV. For three to do well enough to actually win EVs is impossible.

[Mister Mets]

These two maps are possible. History favors the Republican map, but under ideal circumstances, Clinton could take the Obama states + North Carolina.

I get that you're saying (I think) that history favors a Republican win after two Democratic terms. But in what way does history favor that particular map? PA in Republican hands? What history are you leaning on here?

Pennsylvania has been getting closer to the national average in the last few presidential elections. It was really close to Iowa, New Hampshire and Colorado in 2012, and this was with a comparatively limited investment by Republicans in terms of dollars per electoral vote.

It's not that rare for parties to gain states they haven't won in multiple cycles. In 1992, Clinton won New Hampshire, Iowa, California, Colorado and a bunch of other states the party hadn't won since the 1964 landslide. In 2008, Obama won Virginia, Indiana and North Carolina, states Clinton couldn't win.

The other element of history is that parties tend to peak, and then decline until they lose the General Election. If Clinton were to outperform Obama's 2012 numbers, it would be in defiance of a pattern we've seen for 80+ years. It could still happen, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[Nyvin]

These two maps are possible. History favors the Republican map, but under ideal circumstances, Clinton could take the Obama states + North Carolina.

I get that you're saying (I think) that history favors a Republican win after two Democratic terms. But in what way does history favor that particular map? PA in Republican hands? What history are you leaning on here?

Pennsylvania has been getting closer to the national average in the last few presidential elections. It was really close to Iowa, New Hampshire and Colorado in 2012, and this was with a comparatively limited investment by Republicans in terms of dollars per electoral vote.

It's not that rare for parties to gain states they haven't won in multiple cycles. In 1992, Clinton won New Hampshire, Iowa, California, Colorado and a bunch of other states the party hadn't won since the 1964 landslide. In 2008, Obama won Virginia, Indiana and North Carolina, states Clinton couldn't win.

The other element of history is that parties tend to peak, and then decline until they lose the General Election. If Clinton were to outperform Obama's 2012 numbers, it would be in defiance of a pattern we've seen for 80+ years. It could still happen, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Pennsylvania has been consistently ranked D+1 Or D+2 since 1992.    It hasn't budged one bit.   

[SingingAnalyst]

These two maps are possible. History favors the Republican map, but under ideal circumstances, Clinton could take the Obama states + North Carolina.

I get that you're saying (I think) that history favors a Republican win after two Democratic terms. But in what way does history favor that particular map? PA in Republican hands? What history are you leaning on here?

Pennsylvania has been getting closer to the national average in the last few presidential elections. It was really close to Iowa, New Hampshire and Colorado in 2012, and this was with a comparatively limited investment by Republicans in terms of dollars per electoral vote.

It's not that rare for parties to gain states they haven't won in multiple cycles. In 1992, Clinton won New Hampshire, Iowa, California, Colorado and a bunch of other states the party hadn't won since the 1964 landslide. In 2008, Obama won Virginia, Indiana and North Carolina, states Clinton couldn't win.

The other element of history is that parties tend to peak, and then decline until they lose the General Election. If Clinton were to outperform Obama's 2012 numbers, it would be in defiance of a pattern we've seen for 80+ years. It could still happen, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Pennsylvania has been consistently ranked D+1 Or D+2 since 1992.    It hasn't budged one bit.   

I agree that to win, the GOP must make PA competitive. The GOP can hold all Romney states and win "back" FL, OH and VA and still lose-- and VA has been trending Dem lately. So has NH, CO and NV. Yes, PA is D+1 or D+2-- but in 1984 PA was D+5 and in 1988, when PA last went Republican, it was D+3.

[Nyvin]

These two maps are possible. History favors the Republican map, but under ideal circumstances, Clinton could take the Obama states + North Carolina.

I get that you're saying (I think) that history favors a Republican win after two Democratic terms. But in what way does history favor that particular map? PA in Republican hands? What history are you leaning on here?

Pennsylvania has been getting closer to the national average in the last few presidential elections. It was really close to Iowa, New Hampshire and Colorado in 2012, and this was with a comparatively limited investment by Republicans in terms of dollars per electoral vote.

It's not that rare for parties to gain states they haven't won in multiple cycles. In 1992, Clinton won New Hampshire, Iowa, California, Colorado and a bunch of other states the party hadn't won since the 1964 landslide. In 2008, Obama won Virginia, Indiana and North Carolina, states Clinton couldn't win.

The other element of history is that parties tend to peak, and then decline until they lose the General Election. If Clinton were to outperform Obama's 2012 numbers, it would be in defiance of a pattern we've seen for 80+ years. It could still happen, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Pennsylvania has been consistently ranked D+1 Or D+2 since 1992.    It hasn't budged one bit.   

I agree that to win, the GOP must make PA competitive. The GOP can hold all Romney states and win "back" FL, OH and VA and still lose-- and VA has been trending Dem lately. So has NH, CO and NV. Yes, PA is D+1 or D+2-- but in 1984 PA was D+5 and in 1988, when PA last went Republican, it was D+3.

I don't think election numbers from the 1980's are all that relevant today.

Also all the population growth in PA is in the east around Philly.    The western and central areas are mostly declining in population.   I don't see how the GOP can get more votes out of the state with current demographics.

[Mr. Illini]

OK... how about this one? 269-269 tie

Not gonna happen

[/]

All of them seem pretty plausible.