Republican floor

[politicus]

What do you see as the Republican floor in presidential elections in the years ahead? It is often set at 170-200 by various analysts, but I only get 113 (or probably 114 now that they changed CD2 in Nebraska). AL, Alaska, ID, KS, KY, LA, MS, NE, OK, TE, TX, UT, WY. Maybe Arkansas too, but I could still see a populist Southern Dem win it in a very good year.

[Emperor SJoyce]

Add Arkansas, West Virginia, and the Dakotas to that and you get (I think) 131, which is a pretty reasonable floor, compared to the Democratic 161 (CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, MD, MA, NY, RI, VT, and WA).

[politicus]

Add Arkansas, West Virginia, and the Dakotas to that and you get (I think) 131, which is a pretty reasonable floor, compared to the Democratic 161 (CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, MD, MA, NY, RI, VT, and WA).

I think the Dakotas could be won by a populist Western Democrat like Schweitzer in a good year. Hard to see West Virginia as solid Republican in all cases. They just don't like Obama.
Some would say that Hillary Clinton could have won both WV and Arkansas. Not sure about that, but I think some Democrats could.

Interesting Dem floor. Here the commentators generally say 251 or close, so it seems they just use floor in a different way than I understand it.
My definition would be states the party could only loose in "life boy/dead girl" scenarios.

[Emperor SJoyce]

Add Arkansas, West Virginia, and the Dakotas to that and you get (I think) 131, which is a pretty reasonable floor, compared to the Democratic 161 (CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, MD, MA, NY, RI, VT, and WA).

I think the Dakotas could be won by a populist Western Democrat like Schweitzer in a good year. Hard to see West Virginia as solid Republican in all cases. They just don't like Obama.
Some would say that Hillary Clinton could have won both WV and Arkansas. Not sure about that, but I think some Democrats could.

Interesting Dem floor. Here the commentators generally say 251 or close, so it seems they just use floor in a different way than I understand it.
My definition would be states the party could only loose in "life boy/dead girl" scenarios.

I add the Dakotas because, while Schweitzer is from the Mountain West 'Unchurched Belt', the Dakotas have some of the highest rates of religious observance in the nation (North is beaten by only MS and PR).
On WV, it seems like a state where Democrats will get lots of local success (both Senators are Democrats), but a Pres. candidate won't be the kind of Democrat who appeals to them. And Clinton could win Arkansas, because she's the former First Lady of Arkansas. And that's pretty much my definition as well, but to simplify things for their audience, commentators add states like Maine and Oregon to the Democratic side and states like Georgia and Indiana to the Republicans, to concentrate on the Floridas and Virginias.