future electoral map?

[Reignman]

I'm basically thinking about general trends, like Minnesota to Republicans and the Southwest and Florida to Democrats over the last few elections.

[A18]

Give New Hampshire to the Democrats and give Florida to the Republicans.

Nevada, IMHO, is too libertarian to go for a Democrat, but it depends who they nominate.

[DanielX]

I'm basically thinking about general trends, like Minnesota to Republicans and the Southwest and Florida to Democrats over the last few elections.

Swap New Hampshire and Maine District 2 to the Democrats. Otherwise, this is a reasonable 'Democrats win' scenario. For a 'Democrat landslide' scenario, Ohio, Virginia, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and  North Carolina go Democrat. For a 'Republicans win' Scenario, Florida, Michigan, and Arizona go Republican. For a 'Republican landslide' scenario, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, and Pennsylvania also go Republican.

In short, Ohio, Virginia, Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Florida, Michigan, Arizona, New Mexicao, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, and Pennsylvania will be swing states.

[Reignman]

yeah, and states like Washington and Arkansas will be no longer competitive.  in fact, they aren't really all that competitive anymore.  It's weird that Montana/South Dakota and a good part of the Northeast used to be competitive.

[Ben.]

How about Governor John Edwards vs. Senator Matt Blunt 2016?

     

Candidates:

I’m assuming Edwards takes my advice from another thread and gives up the idea that a one term senator can do nothing for four years and still be electable despite having 1. Done nothing for four years 2. No foreign policy experience and 3. Being on a losing presidential ticket as the running mate… Edwards in my view needs to do what FDR did, go back to his home state network like hell and run for governor with Easley likely to not run again in 2008 (he’s hinted that this would be his last term, or his term limited?) Edwards would have a big opening but networking and re-establishing his political credibility in a conservative state have got to be his main priorities over the next few years. If he can then win a second term in 2012 he would be set.

Blunt is more straight forward. Assuming he does well as MO governor and then in say 2012 runs for the Senate he would also be a very strong candidate for the presidency and yet would still be very young and yet not lacking in experience.   


Demographic changes:

The Midwest gets more conservative with states like MN, WI and IA becoming more republican both of a more libertarian shade than the southern states, in IL Chicago retains its ability to outvote the rest of the state but growing republican strength in the “burbs” mean the states is trending to the right and becoming ever more of a tossup. A growth in the Hispanic population in NM, AZ, NV, TX and CO coupled with increasing movement of people from the North West and north east to the area makes the area more and more competitive as it trends to the left. On the Atlantic coast migration from the North East to the South East continues with VA becoming more left leaning with the growth of the northern democratic leaning counties while in North Carolina and Georgia despite increasing emigration to Atlanta, Raleigh, Macon, Athens, Greensboro etc… the states remain fairly safe republican (think of CO or TN in 2004)… but in this contest NC’s Governor is easily able to drag his home state into his own column.   

Then Again all this is just a guess… so who knows.

[Kodratos]

Ben, as long as the people of North Carolina remember John Edwards they will not vote for him. He is probably the most unpopular senator in NC from the past century.

[ATFFL]

Ben, as long as the people of North Carolina remember John Edwards they will not vote for him. He is probably the most unpopular senator in NC from the past century.

If he could run for governor while spending his time acting liek he is running for President he woudl have a shot.  The less time he spends in NC the better he does in terms of approval ratings.

[George W. Bush]

How about Governor John Edwards vs. Senator Matt Blunt 2016?

John Edwards would never get Elected Gov. His state hates him.

[Chicago103]

"in IL Chicago retains its ability to outvote the rest of the state but growing republican strength in the “burbs” mean the states is trending to the right and becoming ever more of a tossup."

Actually that is wrong, the Chicago suburbs are leaning more and more Democratic, in DuPage County one of the supposed GOP strongholds Bush only got 54% of the vote.  It used to be that it was unheard of for a GOP presidential candidate to get less than 60% of the vote in DuPage, the only times since 1952 that was not the case was in 1992 and 1996 (because of Perot no doubt) and 2000. The other collar counties which lean GOP were also in the low 50% range, Bush barely carried Lake and Will Counties. 

[Gustaf]

Next election might look something like this:



This makes it a virtual tie, 223-221 to the GOP. I think it's gonna be along those lines, at least.

[Ben.]

Next election might look something like this:



This makes it a virtual tie, 223-221 to the GOP. I think it's gonna be along those lines, at least.

If Bayh gets nominated and faces say Owens...

[12th Doctor]

Next election might look something like this:



This makes it a virtual tie, 223-221 to the GOP. I think it's gonna be along those lines, at least.

If Bayh gets nominated and faces say Owens...

Bayh will never get the nomination.  Remember, your party punishes non-hardliners.  It's going to be either Hillary or someother Left-winger.

[Ben.]

Next election might look something like this:



This makes it a virtual tie, 223-221 to the GOP. I think it's gonna be along those lines, at least.

If Bayh gets nominated and faces say Owens...

Bayh will never get the nomination.  Remember, your party punishes non-hardliners.  It's going to be either Hillary or someother Left-winger.

Don’t be so sure, lots of Liberals are desperate and Bayh’s positions can be “spun” for the primaries the same way Clinton’s where, it getting to the stage where positions wins and experience wise Bayh is hands down the best candidate save perhaps Blanche Lincoln, but I expect she won’t want the nomination.

[Alcon]

Richardson/Bayh vs. someone from a non-helpful region (i.e. TX/WY):



Richardson 352
Some Republican 186

Well, I can always hope.

[M]

Bayh actually is quite a bit more centrist than Clinton. I predict Bayh-Richardson against a standard Republican (Owens, Allen, Frist) would win the Kerry states plus Indiana and Ohio. In a reelection bid, if he proves himself a true centrist in the white house (which I think he would) and the right nominates an ideologue, expect a blowout in 2012.

Now Bayh v Arnold or Rudy, though, that would just be nuts. The GOPer would be the more leftern candidate; but it wouldn't be like Zell v Chafee or anything, these are real Republicans and Bayh is a real democrat. I don't know who I'd support in such a case, but it would be a really fun election.

[12th Doctor]

Richardson/Bayh vs. someone from a non-helpful region (i.e. TX/WY):



Richardson 352
Some Republican 186

Well, I can always hope.

Ummmmm... see this is the problem with your thinking, they aren't going to be up against "some Republican".  They are going to facing a real person who has a record of accomplishment and will probably be somewhat likeable.

[Alcon]

Richardson/Bayh vs. someone from a non-helpful region (i.e. TX/WY):



Richardson 352
Some Republican 186

Well, I can always hope.

Ummmmm... see this is the problem with your thinking, they aren't going to be up against "some Republican".  They are going to facing a real person who has a record of accomplishment and will probably be somewhat likeable.

Yes, which is why I mean to say that this is a baseline. The Republican would probably be able to flip a few states. This is, basically, what I think this ticket would have done vs. a Republican unknown who was as good, say, as Bush was in 2000.

[12th Doctor]

Richardson/Bayh vs. someone from a non-helpful region (i.e. TX/WY):



Richardson 352
Some Republican 186

Well, I can always hope.

Ummmmm... see this is the problem with your thinking, they aren't going to be up against "some Republican".  They are going to facing a real person who has a record of accomplishment and will probably be somewhat likeable.

Yes, which is why I mean to say that this is a baseline. The Republican would probably be able to flip a few states. This is, basically, what I think this ticket would have done vs. a Republican unknown who was as good, say, as Bush was in 2000.

"Flip a few states"

And Kerry was going to win in a landslide too, right?

[Cashcow]

Heh... I can't see SD swinging to Richardson. Even Clinton couldn't win there with Perot taking a large portion of the vote.

Bayh would win Indiana, though.

[bushforever]

"in IL Chicago retains its ability to outvote the rest of the state but growing republican strength in the “burbs” mean the states is trending to the right and becoming ever more of a tossup."

Actually that is wrong, the Chicago suburbs are leaning more and more Democratic, in DuPage County one of the supposed GOP strongholds Bush only got 54% of the vote.  It used to be that it was unheard of for a GOP presidential candidate to get less than 60% of the vote in DuPage, the only times since 1952 that was not the case was in 1992 and 1996 (because of Perot no doubt) and 2000. The other collar counties which lean GOP were also in the low 50% range, Bush barely carried Lake and Will Counties. 

Actually, I doubt IL will change much.  If anything, yes it will swing slightly GOP.  The GOP will continue to gain votes in growth-heavy McHenry, Kane, DeKalb, Boone, Kendall, Grundy, LaSalle, Will, and Kankakee, even a few in Lake (but overall Lake won't change much), while losing more and more votes in Cook and DuPage.  We'll also have to watch for Rockford, Peoria, Champaign and see how these toss-up counties change.  It all depends on growth.  Little growth is likely in democratic heavy E. St. Louis or Rock Island-Moline.  However, the GOP is gaining in democratic Madison Co., thanks to growth in the Metro East suburbs (Collinsville, Edwardsville, Glen Carbon, etc.)

[danwxman]

"in IL Chicago retains its ability to outvote the rest of the state but growing republican strength in the “burbs” mean the states is trending to the right and becoming ever more of a tossup."

Actually that is wrong, the Chicago suburbs are leaning more and more Democratic, in DuPage County one of the supposed GOP strongholds Bush only got 54% of the vote.  It used to be that it was unheard of for a GOP presidential candidate to get less than 60% of the vote in DuPage, the only times since 1952 that was not the case was in 1992 and 1996 (because of Perot no doubt) and 2000. The other collar counties which lean GOP were also in the low 50% range, Bush barely carried Lake and Will Counties. 

Actually, I doubt IL will change much.  If anything, yes it will swing slightly GOP.  The GOP will continue to gain votes in growth-heavy McHenry, Kane, DeKalb, Boone, Kendall, Grundy, LaSalle, Will, and Kankakee, even a few in Lake (but overall Lake won't change much), while losing more and more votes in Cook and DuPage.  We'll also have to watch for Rockford, Peoria, Champaign and see how these toss-up counties change.  It all depends on growth.  Little growth is likely in democratic heavy E. St. Louis or Rock Island-Moline.  However, the GOP is gaining in democratic Madison Co., thanks to growth in the Metro East suburbs (Collinsville, Edwardsville, Glen Carbon, etc.)

Suburban growth does *not* always favor Republicans, my friend.

[khirkhib]

I like the idea of a Richardson/Bayh ticket.  Their are a couple other ideas for the second spot.  But the ticket is pretty sound in the areas we would need to win.  From Bush's speach the other day it really looks like Condi is aspiring to higher office and because the Christian Coalition and neocons have control of the party to the point that it is turning against its own in some cases (the whole spechter debacle) that I think one of their own will get the nod.  I think it will be the most agresive of them who has already said that he would like to be president.  The CC won't let Giulliani or Swartzenager get on the ticket.  Swartz because they simply won't change the constitution in the next 4 years.  Giulliani will have really negative advertising against him.  Ala McCain and he would win NH and  lose hard in South Carolina.

So 2008 Richardson/Bayh verses Santorum/Condi what would the map look like.

[ilikeverin]

Now Bayh v Arnold or Rudy, though, that would just be nuts. The GOPer would be the more leftern candidate; but it wouldn't be like Zell v Chafee or anything, these are real Republicans and Bayh is a real democrat. I don't know who I'd support in such a case, but it would be a really fun election.

Bayh: Left wing commie!
Giuliani (or is it Guiliani?  eh.): Right wing facist!

[bushforever]

"in IL Chicago retains its ability to outvote the rest of the state but growing republican strength in the “burbs” mean the states is trending to the right and becoming ever more of a tossup."

Actually that is wrong, the Chicago suburbs are leaning more and more Democratic, in DuPage County one of the supposed GOP strongholds Bush only got 54% of the vote.  It used to be that it was unheard of for a GOP presidential candidate to get less than 60% of the vote in DuPage, the only times since 1952 that was not the case was in 1992 and 1996 (because of Perot no doubt) and 2000. The other collar counties which lean GOP were also in the low 50% range, Bush barely carried Lake and Will Counties. 

Actually, I doubt IL will change much.  If anything, yes it will swing slightly GOP.  The GOP will continue to gain votes in growth-heavy McHenry, Kane, DeKalb, Boone, Kendall, Grundy, LaSalle, Will, and Kankakee, even a few in Lake (but overall Lake won't change much), while losing more and more votes in Cook and DuPage.  We'll also have to watch for Rockford, Peoria, Champaign and see how these toss-up counties change.  It all depends on growth.  Little growth is likely in democratic heavy E. St. Louis or Rock Island-Moline.  However, the GOP is gaining in democratic Madison Co., thanks to growth in the Metro East suburbs (Collinsville, Edwardsville, Glen Carbon, etc.)

Suburban growth does *not* always favor Republicans, my friend.

It does around here, pal.

[danwxman]

"in IL Chicago retains its ability to outvote the rest of the state but growing republican strength in the “burbs” mean the states is trending to the right and becoming ever more of a tossup."

Actually that is wrong, the Chicago suburbs are leaning more and more Democratic, in DuPage County one of the supposed GOP strongholds Bush only got 54% of the vote.  It used to be that it was unheard of for a GOP presidential candidate to get less than 60% of the vote in DuPage, the only times since 1952 that was not the case was in 1992 and 1996 (because of Perot no doubt) and 2000. The other collar counties which lean GOP were also in the low 50% range, Bush barely carried Lake and Will Counties. 

Actually, I doubt IL will change much.  If anything, yes it will swing slightly GOP.  The GOP will continue to gain votes in growth-heavy McHenry, Kane, DeKalb, Boone, Kendall, Grundy, LaSalle, Will, and Kankakee, even a few in Lake (but overall Lake won't change much), while losing more and more votes in Cook and DuPage.  We'll also have to watch for Rockford, Peoria, Champaign and see how these toss-up counties change.  It all depends on growth.  Little growth is likely in democratic heavy E. St. Louis or Rock Island-Moline.  However, the GOP is gaining in democratic Madison Co., thanks to growth in the Metro East suburbs (Collinsville, Edwardsville, Glen Carbon, etc.)

Suburban growth does *not* always favor Republicans, my friend.

It does around here, pal.

Okay. It doesn't around Philly. That was my point.