Do the Democrats have a lock on the Presidency?

[BritishDixie]

Because this is my estimation of states the Democrats would almost definately win, barring unsual circumstances. These are the dark red.

The lighter states in my opinion are likely Democratic.



This gives them 263 electoral votes, meaning they would only have to carry one additional state to gain victory. Is this a reasonable view that the Democrats have an equivalent of the Republican lock on the Presidency in the 1970's and 80's.

[nkpatel1279]

Strong Democratic vs Strong Republican.
Democratic=CA-55,NY-29,IL-20,NJ-14,WA-12,MA-11,MD-10,MN-10,CT-7,OR-7,NM-5,HI-4,ME-4,RI-4,DE-3,DC-3,and VT-3=201ev
Republican=TX-38,GA-16,TN-11,AL-9,SC-9,KY-8,LA-8,OK-7,AR-6,KS-6,MS-6,UT-6,NE-5,WV-5,ID-4,AK-3,MT-3,ND-3,SD-3,and WY-3=159ev
Weak Democratic vs Weak Republican
Democratic=PA-20,MI-16,and WI-10=46ev(247ev)
Republican=AZ-11,IN-11,and MO-10=32ev(191ev)
Democrats win NH-4(251ev)
Republicans win FL-29(220ev)
Democrats win IA-6(257ev)
Republicans win OH-18(238ev)
Democrats win NV-6(263ev)
Republicans win NC-15(253ev)
VA-13 and CO-9 are swing states which will be leaning Democratic 1 or 2 election cycles from now.
Romney-R wins the McCain States plus IN-11,NC-15,and FL-29=235ev
Obama-D wins Kerry States minus MI-16,WI-10,and NH-4 plus NM-5,NV-6,and CO-9=236ev. .

[BritishDixie]

Strong Democratic vs Strong Republican.
Democratic=CA-55,NY-29,IL-20,NJ-14,WA-12,MA-11,MD-10,MN-10,CT-7,OR-7,NM-5,HI-4,ME-4,RI-4,DE-3,DC-3,and VT-3=201ev
Republican=TX-38,GA-16,TN-11,AL-9,SC-9,KY-8,LA-8,OK-7,AR-6,KS-6,MS-6,UT-6,NE-5,WV-5,ID-4,AK-3,MT-3,ND-3,SD-3,and WY-3=159ev
Weak Democratic vs Weak Republican
Democratic=PA-20,MI-16,and WI-10=46ev(247ev)
Republican=AZ-11,IN-11,and MO-10=32ev(191ev)
Democrats win NH-4(251ev)
Republicans win FL-29(220ev)
Democrats win IA-6(257ev)
Republicans win OH-18(238ev)
Democrats win NV-6(263ev)
Republicans win NC-15(253ev)
VA-13 and CO-9 are swing states which will be leaning Democratic 1 or 2 election cycles from now.
Romney-R wins the McCain States plus IN-11,NC-15,and FL-29=235ev
Obama-D wins Kerry States minus MI-16,WI-10,and NH-4 plus NM-5,NV-6,and CO-9=236ev. .

This is a reflection of my point that whilst the Democrats do not have enough solid states to win the election outright, their base total is far higher than that of the Republicans.

However gradual population changes are shifting the balance towards the Republicans e.g New York had 33 e.v into 1992

[Zioneer]

If the Republicans keep offending the Latino population, then yes, the Democrats have a lock, or at least a better than even chance for the presidency. That's thousands of votes that would otherwise probably go Republican, and could have won a few states for the GOP.

[Comrade Shmoo]

If NM, CO, NV, and AZ (not to mention VA) keep trending Democratic, then yes, they do.

[BaldEagle1991]

If the Republicans keep offending the Latino population, then yes, the Democrats have a lock, or at least a better than even chance for the presidency. That's thousands of votes that would otherwise probably go Republican, and could have won a few states for the GOP.

That's pretty much it. Then again I think once TX becomes a swing state as a result (because it has a growing Hispanic pop.) the GOP will have to be mixed in immigration if they want to keep the Presidency.

[Mr. Morden]

I remember around 1990 or so, the Republicans had won 5 of the last 6 elections, only barely having lost 1976 in the wake of Watergate.  Everyone was talking about how the Republicans had a lock on the White House, while the Dems had a lock on the House of Representatives.

Also:

http://prospect.org/article/democrats-demographic-dreams

[cope1989]

Strong Democratic vs Strong Republican.
Democratic=CA-55,NY-29,IL-20,NJ-14,WA-12,MA-11,MD-10,MN-10,CT-7,OR-7,NM-5,HI-4,ME-4,RI-4,DE-3,DC-3,and VT-3=201ev
Republican=TX-38,GA-16,TN-11,AL-9,SC-9,KY-8,LA-8,OK-7,AR-6,KS-6,MS-6,UT-6,NE-5,WV-5,ID-4,AK-3,MT-3,ND-3,SD-3,and WY-3=159ev
Weak Democratic vs Weak Republican
Democratic=PA-20,MI-16,and WI-10=46ev(247ev)
Republican=AZ-11,IN-11,and MO-10=32ev(191ev)
Democrats win NH-4(251ev)
Republicans win FL-29(220ev)
Democrats win IA-6(257ev)
Republicans win OH-18(238ev)
Democrats win NV-6(263ev)
Republicans win NC-15(253ev)
VA-13 and CO-9 are swing states which will be leaning Democratic 1 or 2 election cycles from now.
Romney-R wins the McCain States plus IN-11,NC-15,and FL-29=235ev
Obama-D wins Kerry States minus MI-16,WI-10,and NH-4 plus NM-5,NV-6,and CO-9=236ev. .

This is a reflection of my point that whilst the Democrats do not have enough solid states to win the election outright, their base total is far higher than that of the Republicans.

However gradual population changes are shifting the balance towards the Republicans e.g New York had 33 e.v into 1992

Yeah, but where are those Northeastern democratic voters moving to?? The sunbelt! As these states grow, they become less of a lock for the Republicans.

[cope1989]

I remember around 1990 or so, the Republicans had won 5 of the last 6 elections, only barely having lost 1976 in the wake of Watergate.  Everyone was talking about how the Republicans had a lock on the White House, while the Dems had a lock on the House of Representatives.

Also:

http://prospect.org/article/democrats-demographic-dreams

That was right before the Republican party truly spent their electoral majority. They were beginning to lose Hispanics and Asians, New England was about to turn away from them in a big way and the Reagan Democrats were itching to return to the fold. By 1992, Democrats hadn't won an election since 1976 and it was high time for a correction.

Today, Republicans aren't nearly as much of an "out party" as they were in 1992. There was a Republican in the White House less than four years ago. If Republicans don't broaden their base they could encounter the same fate as the Democrats in the 70s and 80s but they're not there yet. Ironically, this helps Obama, as the memory of the last R president still looms large in the minds of voters. In 1992, people had moved past the Carter years. In 2012, the Bush years are still fresh.

[hopper]

I remember around 1990 or so, the Republicans had won 5 of the last 6 elections, only barely having lost 1976 in the wake of Watergate.  Everyone was talking about how the Republicans had a lock on the White House, while the Dems had a lock on the House of Representatives.

Also:

http://prospect.org/article/democrats-demographic-dreams

That was right before the Republican party truly spent their electoral majority. They were beginning to lose Hispanics and Asians, New England was about to turn away from them in a big way and the Reagan Democrats were itching to return to the fold. By 1992, Democrats hadn't won an election since 1976 and it was high time for a correction.

Today, Republicans aren't nearly as much of an "our party" as they were in 1992. There was a Republican in the White House less than four years ago. If Republicans don't broaden their base they could encounter the same fate as the Democrats in the 70s and 80s but they're not there yet. Ironically, this helps Obama, as the memory of the last R president still looms large in the minds of voters. In 1992, people had moved past the Carter years. In 2012, the Bush years are still fresh.

No not back then they were starting losing Hispanics. The last 5-6 years is when they damaged themselves with the latino community when the 2006 Immigration Debate was a disaster for them. Then SB1070 came in 2009 I think? Then Obama basically put the GOP in a corner with the latino community with his executive order. Obama did it because Colorado was a basically a tie with him and Romney I believe. The GOP can't blame Obama for the errors in courting the Hispanic Vote because all they have is themselves to blame. They had years to come up with Immigration Reform and didn't do it. Theiir rhetoric about Hispanics is a no-no also. Karl Rove even told GOP politicians about the importance of the hispanic vote in the future and the GOP politicians just blew it off. Their fault nobody else's.

Not only did the GOP lose New England they gave the Dems the whole Northeast in 1992.

[cope1989]

I remember around 1990 or so, the Republicans had won 5 of the last 6 elections, only barely having lost 1976 in the wake of Watergate.  Everyone was talking about how the Republicans had a lock on the White House, while the Dems had a lock on the House of Representatives.

Also:

http://prospect.org/article/democrats-demographic-dreams

That was right before the Republican party truly spent their electoral majority. They were beginning to lose Hispanics and Asians, New England was about to turn away from them in a big way and the Reagan Democrats were itching to return to the fold. By 1992, Democrats hadn't won an election since 1976 and it was high time for a correction.

Today, Republicans aren't nearly as much of an "our party" as they were in 1992. There was a Republican in the White House less than four years ago. If Republicans don't broaden their base they could encounter the same fate as the Democrats in the 70s and 80s but they're not there yet. Ironically, this helps Obama, as the memory of the last R president still looms large in the minds of voters. In 1992, people had moved past the Carter years. In 2012, the Bush years are still fresh.

No not back then they were starting losing Hispanics. The last 5-6 years is when they damaged themselves with the latino community when the 2006 Immigration Debate was a disaster for them. Then SB1070 came in 2009 I think? Then Obama basically put the GOP in a corner with the latino community with his executive order. Obama did it because Colorado was a basically a tie with him and Romney I believe. The GOP can't blame Obama for the errors in courting the Hispanic Vote because all they have is themselves to blame. They had years to come up with Immigration Reform and didn't do it. Theiir rhetoric about Hispanics is a no-no also. Karl Rove even told GOP politicians about the importance of the hispanic vote in the future and the GOP politicians just blew it off. Their fault nobody else's.

Not only did the GOP lose New England they gave the Dems the whole Northeast in 1992.

Clinton got like 70% if Hispanics in 1996.

[hopper]

I remember around 1990 or so, the Republicans had won 5 of the last 6 elections, only barely having lost 1976 in the wake of Watergate.  Everyone was talking about how the Republicans had a lock on the White House, while the Dems had a lock on the House of Representatives.

Also:

http://prospect.org/article/democrats-demographic-dreams

That was right before the Republican party truly spent their electoral majority. They were beginning to lose Hispanics and Asians, New England was about to turn away from them in a big way and the Reagan Democrats were itching to return to the fold. By 1992, Democrats hadn't won an election since 1976 and it was high time for a correction.

Today, Republicans aren't nearly as much of an "our party" as they were in 1992. There was a Republican in the White House less than four years ago. If Republicans don't broaden their base they could encounter the same fate as the Democrats in the 70s and 80s but they're not there yet. Ironically, this helps Obama, as the memory of the last R president still looms large in the minds of voters. In 1992, people had moved past the Carter years. In 2012, the Bush years are still fresh.

No not back then they were starting losing Hispanics. The last 5-6 years is when they damaged themselves with the latino community when the 2006 Immigration Debate was a disaster for them. Then SB1070 came in 2009 I think? Then Obama basically put the GOP in a corner with the latino community with his executive order. Obama did it because Colorado was a basically a tie with him and Romney I believe. The GOP can't blame Obama for the errors in courting the Hispanic Vote because all they have is themselves to blame. They had years to come up with Immigration Reform and didn't do it. Theiir rhetoric about Hispanics is a no-no also. Karl Rove even told GOP politicians about the importance of the hispanic vote in the future and the GOP politicians just blew it off. Their fault nobody else's.

Not only did the GOP lose New England they gave the Dems the whole Northeast in 1992.

Clinton got like 70% if Hispanics in 1996.

No but the Republicans started to make inroads with the Hispanic vote with Bush(W.) in the first half of the 2000's

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

The Republicans practically "owned" the Presidency in the 1920s, and look how that worked out.

So, to say the Democrats have a lock on the Presidency makes no sense.  To say any party has a lock on the Presidency makes no sense.

History changes, sometimes on a dime, sometimes as the culmination of a series of great events.

At this point in time, yes, the Democrats have an advantage, but certainly not a lock.  The campaign, and the course of events, will determine the outcome of this election.

[Communists For McCain]

I remember around 1912 or so, the Republicans had won 5 of the last 6 elections, only barely having lost 1892 with a strong third party presence from the Populists.  Everyone was talking about how the Republicans had a lock on the White House.

Also:

Meh, look at wikipedia.

That was right before the Republican party truly spent their electoral majority. They were beginning to lose Catholics and Germans, the West was about to turn away from them in a big way and the McKinley/Roosevelt Democrats were itching to return to the fold. By 1912, Democrats hadn't won an election since 1892 and it was high time for a correction.

Today, Republicans aren't nearly as much of an "our party" as they were in 1912. There was a Republican in the White House less than four years ago. If Republicans don't broaden their base they could encounter the same fate as the Democrats in the 90s and 00s but they're not there yet. Ironically, this helps Roosevelt, as the memory of the last R president still looms large in the minds of voters. In 1912, people had moved past the Cleveland years. In 1936, the Hoover years are still fresh.

No not back then they were starting losing Catholics. The last 8 years is when they damaged themselves with the Catholic community with the 1928 Presidential Campaign. Then the Stock Market Crash came in 1929 I think? Then Roosevelt basically put the GOP in a corner with the Catholic community with his campaigning against Prohibition. Roosevelt did it because Massachusetts was a basically a tie with him and Hoover I believe. The GOP can't blame Roosevelt for the errors in courting the Catholic Vote because all they have is themselves to blame. They had years to warm over people pissed off at Wilson and they failed. Their rhetoric about immigrants is a no-no also. Harry M. Daugherty even told GOP politicians about the importance of the Catholic vote in the future and the GOP politicians just blew it off. Their fault nobody else's.

Not only did the GOP lose the West they gave the Dems every state west of Pennsylvania in 1932.

Wilson got like 65% of Catholics in 1916.

No but the Republicans started to make inroads with the Catholic vote with Harding/Coolidge in the first half of the 1920's

Fascinating.

[OC]

Yes the blue wall appears to be NV,CO,IA,WI,NH,and PA (272) electoral votes. One NV and CO became Democratic lean states in a prez yr that locked in the prez cause GOP prez have relied on those states including Dubya for yrs.

[Ogre Mage]

I agree with others that the Hispanic vote is the key here.  The immigration debates of the last six years have badly damaged the GOPs image among Latinos and with every passing year it becomes a larger demographic problem.  The fact Romney is such a poor candidate with Latinos (for both policy and PR reasons) is a significant reason why I think Obama is favored in this election.

It really isn't that the GOP has lost some huge share of the Hispanic vote over the years.  It actually has been pretty constant, usually somewhere in 30s.  Bush getting 40-42% in 2004 represented a high-water mark.  But the number of Hispanic voters has grown tremendously and getting thirty something percent of the Hispanic vote is much more problematic than it used to be.  Up through 1992, Hispanics made up about 2-3% of all voters.  In 2008, they were 9% of the vote.

Eventually, the GOP will find a way to counteract this, either by a more inclusive policy toward Hispanics or making inroads with some other untapped demographic.  The question is when this will happen and how much time will they spend underwater before making the adjustment.  I suspect the 2016 Presidential election will be a difficult one for the GOP, demographically speaking.  But any further out than that, who knows what the picture will look like.

[hopper]

I agree with others that the Hispanic vote is the key here.  The immigration debates of the last six years have badly damaged the GOPs image among Latinos and with every passing year it becomes a larger demographic problem.  The fact Romney is such a poor candidate with Latinos (for both policy and PR reasons) is a significant reason why I think Obama is favored in this election.

It really isn't that the GOP has lost some huge share of the Hispanic vote over the years.  It actually has been pretty constant, usually somewhere in 30s.  Bush getting 40-42% in 2004 represented a high-water mark.  But the number of Hispanic voters has grown tremendously and getting thirty something percent of the Hispanic vote is much more problematic than it used to be.  Up through 1992, Hispanics made up about 2-3% of all voters.  In 2008, they were 9% of the vote.

Eventually, the GOP will find a way to counteract this, either by a more inclusive policy toward Hispanics or making inroads with some other untapped demographic.  The question is when this will happen and how much time will they spend underwater before making the adjustment.  I suspect the 2016 Presidential election will be a difficult one for the GOP, demographically speaking.  But any further out than that, who knows what the picture will look like.

I think if the GOP continues with their ties to the Tea Party its gonna be hard to get like 40% of the Latino vote. I don't think Latino's can relate to the Tea Party at all. The GOP made 2 or 3 bad mistakes since 2006 with the latino vote and the debt ceiling debacle of last year. Romney has probably cost himself Colorado and Nevada(this being the 3rd mistake) along with Obama's executive order and him(Romney) running so far to the right on immigration policy. I mean look at the GOP's negative numbers in survey's. These 2 or 3 mistakes are  examples as to why the GOP has bad numbers in survey's.

I do think the GOP tried to make adjustments demographically after getting blown out in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles. One of the GOP goals after the 2008 election was to win back some of the latino vote and than the Tea Party came and pushed the party dramatically rightward. The plan to win back some of the latino vote went up in smoke.

[BaldEagle1991]

I agree with others that the Hispanic vote is the key here.  The immigration debates of the last six years have badly damaged the GOPs image among Latinos and with every passing year it becomes a larger demographic problem.  The fact Romney is such a poor candidate with Latinos (for both policy and PR reasons) is a significant reason why I think Obama is favored in this election.

It really isn't that the GOP has lost some huge share of the Hispanic vote over the years.  It actually has been pretty constant, usually somewhere in 30s.  Bush getting 40-42% in 2004 represented a high-water mark.  But the number of Hispanic voters has grown tremendously and getting thirty something percent of the Hispanic vote is much more problematic than it used to be.  Up through 1992, Hispanics made up about 2-3% of all voters.  In 2008, they were 9% of the vote.

Eventually, the GOP will find a way to counteract this, either by a more inclusive policy toward Hispanics or making inroads with some other untapped demographic.  The question is when this will happen and how much time will they spend underwater before making the adjustment.  I suspect the 2016 Presidential election will be a difficult one for the GOP, demographically speaking.  But any further out than that, who knows what the picture will look like.

I think if the GOP continues with their ties to the Tea Party its gonna be hard to get like 40% of the Latino vote. I don't think Latino's can relate to the Tea Party at all. The GOP made 2 or 3 bad mistakes since 2006 with the latino vote and the debt ceiling debacle of last year. Romney has probably cost himself Colorado and Nevada(this being the 3rd mistake) along with Obama's executive order and him(Romney) running so far to the right on immigration policy. I mean look at the GOP's negative numbers in survey's. These 2 or 3 mistakes are  examples as to why the GOP has bad numbers in survey's.

I do think the GOP tried to make adjustments demographically after getting blown out in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles. One of the GOP goals after the 2008 election was to win back some of the latino vote and than the Tea Party came and pushed the party dramatically rightward. The plan to win back some of the latino vote went up in smoke.

It's not easy getting any minority vote, when lower-class Southern whites are your base.

[Mr. Morden]

There's no reason to believe that the current racial categories are necessarily going to be meaningful 20 or 30 years from now.  So, the GOP has problems with people who currently identify as "Latinos".  So what?  Will the same category of people still self-consciously identify as a racial minority decades from now?  Will all Asians still identify as a minority group, or will many become so assimilated into the "mainstream" that their votes will much more closely match those of whites?  There's no way to know that.  Lots of other minority groups started out voting as a block, but then shifted over time.  Do you think that Catholics always divided their votes between the two major parties as evenly as they do now?

[greenforest32]

It does look that way, especially when you consider where Colorado and Virginia are. Then there's the potential of Arizona and Georgia flipping in the next 10 or so years.

I think 2016 is going to be even tougher for Republicans than 2012 assuming it's an open seat where Obama wins in 2012 instead Romney running for re-election and there's no new recession (we can always hope right guys?).

2020 and on will be shifting time for the Republicans as the country gets even less white, less religious, and a sizable chunk of today's seniors die.

[Ogre Mage]

Since the Asian vote got mentioned, it is worth noting that Asians used to favor the Republican party.  Bush the First won them in 1992 and I believe in 1988 as well.  1996 appears to have been a transitional election, with Clinton and Dole running about even with the Asian vote.  From 2000 on, the Democrats have solidly carried Asian voters.  I think the reasons for this change have been batted around on the boards before.

Asian voters tend to be concentrated in clearly Democratic states rather than swing states (WA, CA, NJ, NY, HI).  The one exception I can think of is Nevada.  When Sharron Angle told those Hispanic students they looked more Asian to her I suspect she managed to offend both groups, lol.

[hopper]

Since the Asian vote got mentioned, it is worth noting that Asians used to favor the Republican party.  Bush the First won them in 1992 and I believe in 1988 as well.  1996 appears to have been a transitional election, with Clinton and Dole running about even with the Asian vote.  From 2000 on, the Democrats have solidly carried Asian voters.  I think the reasons for this change have been batted around on the boards before.

Asian voters tend to be concentrated in clearly Democratic states rather than swing states (WA, CA, NJ, NY, HI).  The one exception I can think of is Nevada.  When Sharron Angle told those Hispanic students they looked more Asian to her I suspect she managed to offend both groups, lol.

Well to defend Sharon Angle flipino's do have spanish roots. No her ad about Harry Reid catering  to illegal immigrants hurt her in my opinion.

I didn't know NV had a good block of Asian voters.

 I think why Asian voters vote Dem is most of them immigrate here from their countries which are leftist and like the Hispanics that leave their countries for the US the closest thing to their countries government is the US Dem Party. Asian women do not have high fertility rates like their Hispanic women counterparts in the US. Most of the growth of the Asian population in the US is through immigration. Therefore the way the Republican Party Platform is right now there is not a shot they can peel off more Asians from the Dem party. They are better off softening their stance with Hispanics on immigration reform than going for Asians that left leftists regimes.

[BaldEagle1991]

Since the Asian vote got mentioned, it is worth noting that Asians used to favor the Republican party.  Bush the First won them in 1992 and I believe in 1988 as well.  1996 appears to have been a transitional election, with Clinton and Dole running about even with the Asian vote.  From 2000 on, the Democrats have solidly carried Asian voters.  I think the reasons for this change have been batted around on the boards before.

Asian voters tend to be concentrated in clearly Democratic states rather than swing states (WA, CA, NJ, NY, HI).  The one exception I can think of is Nevada.  When Sharron Angle told those Hispanic students they looked more Asian to her I suspect she managed to offend both groups, lol.

Well to defend Sharon Angle flipino's do have spanish roots.

That's hardly true.

[Ogre Mage]

Since the Asian vote got mentioned, it is worth noting that Asians used to favor the Republican party.  Bush the First won them in 1992 and I believe in 1988 as well.  1996 appears to have been a transitional election, with Clinton and Dole running about even with the Asian vote.  From 2000 on, the Democrats have solidly carried Asian voters.  I think the reasons for this change have been batted around on the boards before.

Asian voters tend to be concentrated in clearly Democratic states rather than swing states (WA, CA, NJ, NY, HI).  The one exception I can think of is Nevada.  When Sharron Angle told those Hispanic students they looked more Asian to her I suspect she managed to offend both groups, lol.

I didn't know NV had a good block of Asian voters.

From the 2010 Census:

The Asian alone-or-in-combination population grew by at least 30 percent in all states except for Hawaii (11 percent increase). The top five states that experienced the most growth were Nevada (116 percent), Arizona (95 percent), North Carolina (85 percent), North Dakota (85 percent) and Georgia (83 percent). These same five states also experienced the most growth in the Asian alone population.

The states with the highest proportions of the Asian alone-or-in-combination population were in the West and the Northeast. The Asian alone-or-in-combination population represented 57 percent of the total population in Hawaii. California had the next highest proportion at 15 percent, followed by New Jersey (9 percent), Nevada (9 percent), Washington (9 percent) and New York (8 percent). These same six states had the highest proportions of the Asian alone population.

http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb12-cn22.html

I don't know how politically active Nevada Asians are, though.  In Washington State Asians have been around a long time and are fairly well-established politically.  Political organizations and candidates have traditionally operated through the Democratic Party.  I think Gary Locke was the first Asian governor outside of Hawaii.

In contrast, the Hispanic community in Washington does not seem to be very politically organized, even though from a numbers standpoint they are the largest minority group.  But Nevada is a different story.

[I Can't Get That Sound You Make, Out Of My Head]

Since the Asian vote got mentioned, it is worth noting that Asians used to favor the Republican party.  Bush the First won them in 1992 and I believe in 1988 as well.  1996 appears to have been a transitional election, with Clinton and Dole running about even with the Asian vote.  From 2000 on, the Democrats have solidly carried Asian voters.  I think the reasons for this change have been batted around on the boards before.

Asian voters tend to be concentrated in clearly Democratic states rather than swing states (WA, CA, NJ, NY, HI).  The one exception I can think of is Nevada.  When Sharron Angle told those Hispanic students they looked more Asian to her I suspect she managed to offend both groups, lol.

I didn't know NV had a good block of Asian voters.

From the 2010 Census:

The Asian alone-or-in-combination population grew by at least 30 percent in all states except for Hawaii (11 percent increase). The top five states that experienced the most growth were Nevada (116 percent), Arizona (95 percent), North Carolina (85 percent), North Dakota (85 percent) and Georgia (83 percent). These same five states also experienced the most growth in the Asian alone population.

The states with the highest proportions of the Asian alone-or-in-combination population were in the West and the Northeast. The Asian alone-or-in-combination population represented 57 percent of the total population in Hawaii. California had the next highest proportion at 15 percent, followed by New Jersey (9 percent), Nevada (9 percent), Washington (9 percent) and New York (8 percent). These same six states had the highest proportions of the Asian alone population.

http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb12-cn22.html

I don't know how politically active Nevada Asians are, though.  In Washington State Asians have been around a long time and are fairly well-established politically.  Political organizations and candidates have traditionally operated through the Democratic Party.  I think Gary Locke was the first Asian governor outside of Hawaii.

In contrast, the Hispanic community in Washington does not seem to be very politically organized, even though from a numbers standpoint they are the largest minority group.  But Nevada is a different story.

Ensign had some Asian heritage IIRC.