Republicans and States in Presidential Elections

[redcommander]

So obviously they were able to win Iowa and New Mexico in 2004, but when will they pick up at least one other state that was won in or Pre-1988?

[Bo]

Further in the future.

[Derek]

I think that Wisconsin, Oregon, and Minnesota all have a chance to go red. They were 50/50 for Bush and Kerry.

[Psychic Octopus]

Pennsylvania is looking like a good chance in 2012, as it was in 2004, and perhaps Michigan too under the right circumstances.

[segwaystyle2012]

2012 is going to be a big surprise fo rthose think Gary Johnson can't win. We are about to break in to the Blue Firewall once and for all.

[TeePee4Prez]

Pennsylvania is looking like a good chance in 2012, as it was in 2004, and perhaps Michigan too under the right circumstances.

Ehhhhh... NO!  If they couldn't put out Obama even with the race issue in western PA, they sure as hell won't do it in 2012.  The lncreasingly liberal and vote rich Southeast is too much to overcome.  I'm also noticing something I've been saying all along with the Gov polls.  Joe Hoeffel is our best hope in the 2010 Governor's race, not the conservatives from other parts of the state.  He will bring out the base- Onorato and Wagner won't.  Sure the latter 2 will have a shot at Jack Murtha-land, but .. oh wait Obama lost that didn't he? 

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

2012. States in the Northeast, Midwest, and Pacific will all be up for grabs.

[Smid]

I agree with Derek that Oregan and Wisconsin have a reasonable chance of voting Republican in the future. As he pointed out, they have been extremely close in recent elections.

I also agree with Nik that things don't look as positive for Obama in Pennsylvania at the moment as they have in the past, and I think that if manufacturing in Michigan continues to decline and unemployment rises enough there, voters may possibly be tempted into voting Republican. However I agree with Flyers that it's unlikely he has much to worry about. Possible, but unlikely for now.

[memphis]

The whole notion of a "blue firewall" is pretty stupid. It's not that these states are uber-Dem. It's that the Dems haven't lost badly in over twenty years.

[redcommander]

I really do hope Oregon can be competitive again by 2012. Republicans have a good chance of picking up house seats, doing well in the senate race (Key word "well", I don't expect Wyden currently to be in serious trouble, he would probably just win in the current environment with less than 60%), winning the Governor's race, and regaining control of the State Senate. The problem with the state is that Republicans haven't been able to recently make headway into Portland in many races, which they will need to do in order to win the state.

[Guderian]

Pawlenty or Daniels would have a decent shot at Upper Midwest portion of Blue Firewall, under right circumstances. Maybe even Romney if economy is still in the toilet by 2012. Northeastern part will probably stay firm in near future, although Democratic margins of victory might be slimmer than usual. I don't count New Hampshire as part of the firewall since Bush won there in 2000, but other NE states Republicans could win in theory are Maine and New Jersey. Left Coast is hopeless except in a case of wildly popular Republican wins a landslide reelection sometime in future.

[ScottM]

I think there are a few possibilities for 2012: Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin all come to mind. If the Dems have a total meltdown, others come into play.

[Psychic Octopus]

I can't see Oregon, for some reason. Bush Sr. lost it, after all, in a landslide election.

[auburntiger]

Of course it depends on the national climate, but anything could happen. Who would have thought in 2006 that Indiana would have voted for a Democrat.

I could see these "blue-firewall states" going GOP in this order, provided that the national climate is just plain awful for Democrats, and Republicans do everything right.

Pennsylvania/Michigan, Wisconsin/Minnesota, Maine/New Jersey, Oregon/Washington.

If the GOP wins PA they're likely to win MI too. Same with WI/MN, and or ME/NJ, and OR/WA

[RIP Robert H Bork]

The whole notion of a "blue firewall" is pretty stupid. It's not that these states are uber-Dem. It's that the Dems haven't lost badly in over twenty years.

[Bo]

If the GOP wins PA they're likely to win MI too. Same with WI/MN, and or ME/NJ, and OR/WA

The GOP almost win WI in 2000 and 2004, but was not that close in winning Minnesota. Also, the GOP almost won OR in 2000, but was not even close in attempting to win WA.

[Derek]

Dude what part of PA are you in Flyers Fan? The only counties west of Harrisburg that went to Obama were Allegheny and Erie. McCain actually did better than Bush in Allegheny county. Look any democrat could have won in 2008. 2012 will be a different story. And there was another post about PA and MI possibly going to the GOP which is true. However, the question was which democrat state from 1988 could go to the GOP in 2012. MI and PA were both Republican in 1988. I know what you mean though lol. PA will be electing a GOP senator and governor this year.

[TeePee4Prez]

Dude what part of PA are you in Flyers Fan? The only counties west of Harrisburg that went to Obama were Allegheny and Erie. McCain actually did better than Bush in Allegheny county. Look any democrat could have won in 2008. 2012 will be a different story. And there was another post about PA and MI possibly going to the GOP which is true. However, the question was which democrat state from 1988 could go to the GOP in 2012. MI and PA were both Republican in 1988. I know what you mean though lol. PA will be electing a GOP senator and governor this year.

Northeast Philly.  And I hate to say yes, a GOP Governor, but not a Senator will be elected in 2010.

[DS0816]

So obviously they were able to win Iowa and New Mexico in 2004, but when will they pick up at least one other state that was won in or Pre-1988?

The two states you mentioned are the only ones in the union that have voted for the popular vote winner in every election of the 1990s and 2000s. Plus, New Mexico is a bellwether state that has voted since 1912; they've backed the winners in all except 1976 (Jimmy Carter) and 2000 (George W. Bush). With exception of 2000, N.M. has agreed with another bellwether, Nevada, since its first vote. And with Ia., it's been trending surprisingly closer than nearly every state in reflecting the margin and percent of the popular vote.

In answer to your question about a string of states that haven't voted for a GOP presidential candidate since 1988 George Bush: The Republican Party's platform will have to change. And the results wouldn't be arbitrary. In other words, it wouldn't be just one state.

[Derek]

Idk about that.  The GOP can win PA with their platform. The state of PA which I live in is about as conservative as Alabama, but the problem is the Democratic machine rather than liberal ideaology.  No matter how big a landslide for the GOP, PA will always be competitive in our life times.  The best thing for the GOP to do is hound social issues with conservative stances in PA.

[DS0816]

Idk about that.  The GOP can win PA with their platform. The state of PA which I live in is about as conservative as Alabama, but the problem is the Democratic machine rather than liberal ideaology.  No matter how big a landslide for the GOP, PA will always be competitive in our life times.  The best thing for the GOP to do is hound social issues with conservative stances in PA.

They can't. Not with the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and Erie regions. Not in a state that's been voting, say, three to five points on top of the Democrats' popular vote percentage/margin.

The best the GOP has done is in lowering the Democrats' margins. Which is what a party does when it unseats in the White House the incumbent party (as Bush did in 2000, Obama in 2008); it's just a natural part of reflecting the national shift (Bush took 1996 Dole's 8.5 deficit and shifted 8 points; Obama took Kerry's 2004 deficit of 2.5 and shifted 9.75 margin).

For the GOP to win back Pa., they'd be doing it under circumstances with a more appealing platform and a resulting string of states they haven't carried since the 1980s. That would include not just Pa. But also Michigan and Connecticut. We're talking about the northeast, and we're talking about a domino effect that includes the western block of California, Oregon, and Washington. And then there's the midwest of states that are west of the Great Lakes. This current Republican Party is not going to produce those kind of results.

[DS0816]

If the GOP wins PA they're likely to win MI too. Same with WI/MN, and or ME/NJ, and OR/WA

The GOP almost [won] WI in 2000 and 2004, but was not that close in winning Minnesota. Also, the GOP almost won OR in 2000, but was not even close in attempting to win WA.

2000 Minnesota: Bush (45.5%); * Gore (47.9%). A 2.4% margin. 1996 Bill Clinton carried the state over Bob Dole by 16.1%. (GOP shift of 13.7%, 5.7% the party's national shift of 8 points.)

2004 Minnesota: Bush (47.6%); * Kerry (51.1%). A 3.5% margin. (DEM shift of 1.1%.)


2008 Minnesota: McCain (43.82%); * Obama (54.06%). A 10.76% margin. (DEM shift of 7.75%.)

[Mechaman]

The idea that a state will continue voting one way is ridiculous.  Okay, the Solid South may be an exception but in most cases I would disagree with the notion that a state or a group of states will continue voting one party over another absent a landslide.  In fact I believe that more than anything it's the individual candidates and how the appeal to each region of the country.  Thus while it may seem safe to assume one state will vote one way due to how it has voted in the past, that is a faulty assumption to make.

I mean how else does someone explain differences like these:

1920:

1924:

Now notice how Massachusetts and Rhode Island both vote over 60% for the Republican and notice too Virginia voted over 60% for the Democratic candidate in both despite being landslides and how Texas voted over 70% for the Democratic candidate in 1924.  Which brings me to my next point:

1928:

Notice how that four years later Texas swings Republican by more than 24 percentage points resulting in the first time that state ever voted Republican and how Virginia suddenly went Republican too.  But perhaps the most noticeable change is that despite losing an even worse electoral landslide than the previous two elections the Democrats were able to win Massachusetts and Rhode Island which were at that time supposed to be SOLID GOP.

In other words, don't assume voting trends.

[DS0816]

…In other words, don't assume voting trends.

"Don't assume voting trends" is not a bad idea. In fact, during 2004, lots of GOPers thought Minnesota and Wisconsin might become theirs. Because of the reduced margins. All it meant was that Bush got them a lot closer to flipping than, say, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

But I won't be heeding any advice to ignore patterns when it comes to recognizing states, say when speaking of them in pairs, that tend to be likeminded in their final vote.

For example: Since the first-post WWII election of 1948, the following are among a string of states that have voted nearly, or exactly, the same in all elections: California and Illinois; New Jersey and Vermont; Delaware and Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania and Michigan; Michigan and Connecticut; Connecticut and Maine; Maine and Michigan; Mississippi and Alabama; Kentucky and Tennessee; Kansas and Nebraska; North Dakota and South Dakota; Colorado and Montana; Idaho and Utah; Utah and Wyoming; Wyoming and Idaho; Ohio and Florida; Nevada and New Mexico.

The most any of those, each as pairs, ever disagreed were … once.  In all such cases, the difference had to do with [shifting in] margins. (Refer to some White House party-flipping elections as: 1952 Tennessee/Kentucky, 1960 Illinois/California, 1992 Ohio/Florida, 2000 Nevada/New Mexico, and 2008 Colorado/Montana.)