If the Democrats hang on to the statehouses in: OH, MI, WI, IA and IL

[sg0508]

Any long term concerns then for the GOP in those states?  With terrible economies, the statehouses will often turnover by party and most of those seats will be open.  These have become very underrated, crucial states in presidential races.  The two races in OH I have my eyes on as the Republicans have needed OH in the past to get to 270.

Democratic turnout could be surpressed this year in what may be a decent year for the GOP, but if the Republicans lose several of these races, are there bigger concerns long term in those states? 

True, gubernatorial races are more bipartisan in general.

My thinking...if you can't win those states this year with this crappy of an economy in the Rust Belt, is the party dead then in coming years? 


The races there are far from over as no candidate is >50% and now in IA, Branstad could have problems with the 3rd party insaniac entering.

[rbt48]

I think that the Republicans could lose all the states you mention but Iowa.  I can't envision Branstad losing.  They really should pick up the open seat in Michigan and perhaps Wisconsin, but I don't know that Strickland is all that unpopular or blamed for the recession in Ohio.  I don't think that Ohio has turned out an incumbent since Gilligan in (of all years) 1974.  Illinois might have to strong a habit of beating up on the disorganized GOP.  But, really, is it a plus to govern these rust belt states during a recession?

Of states you didn't mention, they should pick up Pennsylvania, and that would be a significant gain.  Perhaps he'll bring back the State Assembly, which would be nice for redistricting..

[Kevin]

I think that the Republicans could lose all the states you mention but Iowa.  I can't envision Branstad losing.  They really should pick up the open seat in Michigan and perhaps Wisconsin, but I don't know that Strickland is all that unpopular or blamed for the recession in Ohio.  I don't think that Ohio has turned out an incumbent since Gilligan in (of all years) 1974.  Illinois might have to strong a habit of beating up on the disorganized GOP.  But, really, is it a plus to govern these rust belt states during a recession?

Of states you didn't mention, they should pick up Pennsylvania, and that would be a significant gain.  Perhaps he'll bring back the State Assembly, which would be nice for redistricting..

My thoughts are along the same lines also in the sense that the statewide political environment is strongly against the state/local Democrats in IA, WI, IL, MI and even in PA. Since I've heard and gotten the feeling that Rendell's and the statewide Democrats overall have been hit pretty hard in the past year or so in terms of popularity for several reasons. I concur with you that Strickland and the Democrat's in Ohio will most likely hold onto their state/local gains in November though.

[DS0816]

… as the Republicans have needed OH in the past to get to 270.

Don't you know the saying? No Republican has ever won the presidency/White House without carrying the state of Ohio.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

… as the Republicans have needed OH in the past to get to 270.

Don't you know the saying? No Republican has ever won the presidency/White House without carrying the state of Ohio.

Ohio is declining in importance, and will be worth only 18 electoral votes in the next election. Under the new allotment, Bush could have lost Ohio in 2004 and still won the election.

[SvenssonRS]

… as the Republicans have needed OH in the past to get to 270.

Don't you know the saying? No Republican has ever won the presidency/White House without carrying the state of Ohio.

Ohio is declining in importance, and will be worth only 18 electoral votes in the next election. Under the new allotment, Bush could have lost Ohio in 2004 and still won the election.

This. I think we'll be seeing a major shift towards Florida in the near future, and maybe even Texas in the right years. They're getting huge EV boosts.

[Deldem]

… as the Republicans have needed OH in the past to get to 270.

Don't you know the saying? No Republican has ever won the presidency/White House without carrying the state of Ohio.

Ohio is declining in importance, and will be worth only 18 electoral votes in the next election. Under the new allotment, Bush could have lost Ohio in 2004 and still won the election.

This. I think we'll be seeing a major shift towards Florida in the near future, and maybe even Texas in the right years. They're getting huge EV boosts.

I'd agree with this. Texas can be competitive, if Democrats can get the Hispanic population to vote in greater numbers. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a swing state in 2016 or 2020.

[RRB]

I really doubt that the republicans can win the staehouse in MI.  The reason is that there are not enough republicans in MI.  Even with low Dem turnout, it will be close. 

As of right now,we have never seen an ad or even heard anythig about the dems running, and they are only a few points behind the republicans who have run constant ads on TV.   

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Obviously these will be important for how the redistricting will be done, particularly MI and OH.

[bullmoose88]

… as the Republicans have needed OH in the past to get to 270.

Don't you know the saying? No Republican has ever won the presidency/White House without carrying the state of Ohio.

They said that about Illinois until 2000.

[Bacon King]

… as the Republicans have needed OH in the past to get to 270.

Don't you know the saying? No Republican has ever won the presidency/White House without carrying the state of Ohio.

They said that about Illinois until 2000.

Don't forget the old saying "As goes Maine, so goes the nation" that was around until 1932. Best case as any of demonstrating how silly this sort of belief can be.