2016 Battleground States?

[BaldEagle1991]

could Julian Castro beat Christie in Texas?

Believe it or not he could.......in 2020.

[Ljube]

@tokar

PA, MI, WI and MN are trending Republican. With a right candidate (one who can relate to white working class and turn out evangelicals = a compassionate conservative bordering populist) they can be in play as soon as 2016.

A compassionate conservative would greatly increase his share of blacks and Hispanics and probably win Asians.

[Comrade Funk]

@tokar

PA, MI, WI and MN are trending Republican. With a right candidate (one who can relate to white working class and turn out evangelicals = a compassionate conservative bordering populist) they can be in play as soon as 2016.

A compassionate conservative would greatly increase his share of blacks and Hispanics and probably win Asians.

No they aren't. Seriously, where did you pull this out of your ass?

[Sol]

The current ones:
-Ohio
-Virginia
-Florida
-Nevada

The current ones will become blue:
-Colorado
-Wisconsin
-Iowa

The current ones that will be red:
-North Carolina

The NEW possible battleground states:
-Arizona
-Texas
-Georgia
-Mississippi (YES this will be a swing state, stop laughing!)
-Minnesota
-Indiana

If Georgia is a swing state, NC will be also.

[RJ]

I think right now there is an established base barring a 3%+ victory by either party of about 160-180 EV's each.

*IF* CO, NV, GA, NC, FL and VA are contested, advantage Democratic Party.

*IF* PA, WI, NH, MN, OR, IA, NM and MI are contested, advantage Republican.

Ohio(at this point) is the only state I can think of that has, is, and will continue to be contested.

[pbrower2a]

@tokar

PA, MI, WI and MN are trending Republican. With a right candidate (one who can relate to white working class and turn out evangelicals = a compassionate conservative bordering populist) they can be in play as soon as 2016.

A compassionate conservative would greatly increase his share of blacks and Hispanics and probably win Asians.

Evangelicals are a shrinking constituency. If I were on the Right I would not bank on their votes.

[Ljube]

@tokar

PA, MI, WI and MN are trending Republican. With a right candidate (one who can relate to white working class and turn out evangelicals = a compassionate conservative bordering populist) they can be in play as soon as 2016.

A compassionate conservative would greatly increase his share of blacks and Hispanics and probably win Asians.

No they aren't. Seriously, where did you pull this out of your ass?

2012 results are still not final, but:

PA + 3.05 D in 2008, +2.68 D in 2012
MI + 9.15 D in 2008, + 6.94 D in 2012
WI + 6.64 D in 2008, + 4.13 D in 2012

PA, MI and WI trended Republican.


MN didn’t trend Republican:

MN + 2.97 D in 2008, + 5.11 D in 2012


Unlike 2008, Obama campaigned in all four (or Bill Clinton).
McCain campaigned in PA in 2008.

[Ljube]

@tokar

PA, MI, WI and MN are trending Republican. With a right candidate (one who can relate to white working class and turn out evangelicals = a compassionate conservative bordering populist) they can be in play as soon as 2016.

A compassionate conservative would greatly increase his share of blacks and Hispanics and probably win Asians.

Evangelicals are a shrinking constituency. If I were on the Right I would not bank on their votes.

What would you do then?

Remember, the goal is to win the election, not to merely participate.

[pbrower2a]

The first thing to consider is that a large portion of the Republican vote was not necessarily anti-Democratic, it was anti-Obama, with the majority of that anti-Obama coming from either Hillary supporters (2008), people who (wrongly) believe he is a socialist (2012), and just general racists (2008 and 2012). I think by 2012 those pro-Hillary (Hillary44?) people came around to the Dem side (although I doubt that most of them honestly voted for McCain ticket in 2008). Don't have to worry about changing their minds to vote Democratic. The socialist-believing people have been, for the most part, tea party-ers. Again, don't need to worry about changing their minds. Not too many of the center-left/center-right electorate crying "socialist" either. That leaves the racist crowd. I think there is a good number of people who would have voted Democratic if the candidate was white, just being racists...

But they did not vote for either Gore or Kerry, just the same. (Tennessee was 'only' a 5% loss for Gore, but that is supposedly his home state; take out 10% from the vote for Gore and you have an idea of how the state is without a Democratic favorite son). Is there someone who could win the (Bill) Clinton-but-not-Obama voters in Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Tennessee, and West Virginia? If so, then that Democratic nominee wins a landslide in 2016. Texas and Arizona, good for about as many electoral votes, will likely be closer than any of those states in 2016.

It is hard to imagine any black person as a Presidential or Vice-Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in 2016. Barack Obama was good enough a politician that he could get away with being black and become President and be good enough as President to get re-elected despite still being black. You missed Douglas Wilder, who is already old. I can say this: the first black winner of any statewide election in the Deep South (especially Governor or US Senator) will have shown what it takes to be President. Lots of luck.  A black pol can be elected to the US Congress or as Mayor of a giant city, but such is at least two steps away from the Presidency.        

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Americans may want someone to continue the policies of Barack Obama without being... you guessed it. Such could cripple a Republican's chance of winning the Presidency. Take away the votes of people who would never vote for any black person for high office and President Obama wins a landslide similar to that of Eisenhower in 1956.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is much more likely that one of the nominees for President or Vice-President will be Hispanic than black. But even so, the Republicans have much to do to start eroding the Hispanic support for Democrats. That includes Cuban-Americans in Florida.

Pandering to superstition and pseudoscience of low-class whites will not win Hispanics.

Other minorities are smaller, and perhaps except for Asians in Nevada, not so critical. In a close-enough election one can attribute the difference to such groups as Jews, homosexuals, people with advanced degrees, or even to people in certain professions. Could several states have been decided by the "schoolteacher vote"? That is a large occupational group.

[dspNY]

Ohio, Virginia and Florida certainly...any other state is too early to call a battleground at this time because we don't know the candidates yet.

A Hillary vs. Rubio matchup will produce a different battleground map than a Hillary vs. Christie or a Cuomo vs. Jeb, etc.

[tmthforu94]

That's such a difficult question. I'm shading the states, the higher the % the more likely it'll be a swing state. Not taking any candidate's home states into consideration. Generic R vs. Generic D.

[tokar]

@tokar

PA, MI, WI and MN are trending Republican. With a right candidate (one who can relate to white working class and turn out evangelicals = a compassionate conservative bordering populist) they can be in play as soon as 2016.

A compassionate conservative would greatly increase his share of blacks and Hispanics and probably win Asians.

No they aren't. Seriously, where did you pull this out of your ass?

Well, even though it sounds ridiculous, just based on the numbers he is factually correct...

2012 results are still not final, but:

PA + 3.05 D in 2008, +2.68 D in 2012
MI + 9.15 D in 2008, + 6.94 D in 2012
WI + 6.64 D in 2008, + 4.13 D in 2012

PA, MI and WI trended Republican.


MN didn’t trend Republican:

MN + 2.97 D in 2008, + 5.11 D in 2012


Unlike 2008, Obama campaigned in all four (or Bill Clinton).
McCain campaigned in PA in 2008.

I think your numbers are off. I am having a hard time figuring out where you got them:

This is what I am seeing:
(State: 2008 margin...2012 margin)
PA: D+10.3...D+5.25
MI: D+16.4...D+9.4
WI: D+13.9...D+6.7
MN: D+8.2...D+7.7


I mean, the argument is valid from a straight up look at the number. The problem with the argument is that there were 10,000,000 fewer votes than 2012, and I'm sure the electorate has expanded since 2008, in other words, turnout is way down.

I have been specifically just looking at Virginia, since this is where I live.
In 2008, turnout was at almost 75%. The raw vote was 3.72m. The number of registered voters was a little under 5.1m.
In 2012, turnout will be a little over 70%. The raw vote (currently) is 3.74m, and there are about 116,000 votes outstanding (all of them uncounted absentee, 92,500 of which come from Fairfax county, the remainder come from dem leaning areas, so, expect Obama's margin of victory to increase quite a bit), so you are looking at possibly 3.84m votes or so? Problem is that nearly 400,000 people have registered since 2008 (the majority of them moving to Dem-heavy Northern VA, thus suggesting most of those votes were democratic), bringing the statewide registration over 5.4m. Turnout was down.

So just looking at the margins (D+6.3 in 2008, vs D+3.1 in 2012) you could argue the state is trending Republican. But in reality, the state has been trending Democrat for the past 8 years since the majority of the population expansion of those near-900,000 new registrants are diverse, educated folk who vote Democratic, having moved to the area for the jobs created by expanding Government (mostly the military budget, thanks in part to George Bush).

It is just a simple means of turnout. If the turnout was the same, and the margin went down, then I could fully agree.

Just by the margin argument alone, I could argue Mississippi and Louisiana are trending Democratic since Obama's margin improved. In reality it was related to turnout. The Republican ticket saw a larger drop in vote share than did Obama, and thus Obama's % margin improved.

We are going to have to wait for the full numbers to come in so we can see if there were any states where turnout remained the same, at which point we can compare the numbers and see.

[Ljube]

@tokar

I subtracted the national margin from the state margin. That’s how I got my numbers.

If we did that for Virginia, we would have:

VA – 0.98 D in 2008, + 0.41 D in 2012

Obviously, Virginia trending D.


Again, because you live in Virginia, could you tell me something? I noticed that the percentage of evangelicals voting in 2012 was way down compared to 2008. What was the reason for this?
I think they didn’t turn out because Mitt is a mormon.

Also, in MI, WI, PA and OH lots of working class whites didn’t turn out.
I think these are lost to the Democratic Party and that they will turn out next time to vote for a compassionate conservative with a populist message.

[pbrower2a]

@tokar

... MI, WI, PA and OH lots of working class whites didn’t turn out.
I think these are lost to the Democratic Party and that they will turn out next time to vote for a compassionate conservative with a populist message.

1. Barack Obama is a poor cultural match for working-class whites. Unlike working-class blacks, Hispanics, and Asians they (especially in the South) do not follow the influence of more liberal-leaning middle-class whites (and that is where most of the liberal whites are even if they are decidedly less than a majority of the white middle class).  Anti-intellectualism is more powerful than racism as a political tool for winning over working-class whites heavily concentrated in the South. Gore and Kerry did about as badly among working-class whites, and they were both white.

Anti-intellectualism offends all Asian groups, the extended "talented tenth" among blacks and those that they influence, and Hispanics who recognize education not so much a threat to their culture (it is to poor whites) as the only possible means of avoiding poverty. 

2. "Compassionate conservative" is all but an oxymoron in American politics as the word "conservative" is now used. The Radical Right has seized the word conservative for its own reactionary agenda and stripped it of the connotations of caution and respect for institutions that the word once met.

But that said, the old sort of conservative was always the antithesis of a populist. Right-wing populism with its basis in economic and cultural resentments (ill-educated whites have to compete with poor blacks and Hispanics and resent the loss of privilege in being white that they once thought theirs) can be demonically effective in winning votes. 

[pbrower2a]

@tokar

PA, MI, WI and MN are trending Republican. With a right candidate (one who can relate to white working class and turn out evangelicals = a compassionate conservative bordering populist) they can be in play as soon as 2016.

A compassionate conservative would greatly increase his share of blacks and Hispanics and probably win Asians.

Evangelicals are a shrinking constituency. If I were on the Right I would not bank on their votes.

What would you do then?

Remember, the goal is to win the election, not to merely participate.

Republicans need to hold onto that group, but that will be easy. They need to pick off more people. Pandering to the anti-intellectualism of that group ensures that the Republicans must
win some new batch of single-issue voters. Anti-abortion, anti-homosexual, and gun-rights groups are already theirs.  

Republicans have a chance if the Democrats nominate an unusually-weak candidate for President, but at this stage that says little.  

[pbrower2a]

This is a good idea of what we start with. There will be no change in the electoral votes of states this time. At this point anyone trying to predict who will be the Presidential nominee for either party is a fool. I assume a close Presidential contest in November 2016 because such is the only possibility that is interesting now. Blowouts are boring.



1. Colorado was the tipping-point state in 2012. Due to its demographics (fast-growing Hispanic population) it is likely to go up the list, perhaps going up with states like Michigan and Minnesota as unreachable in a close race. Pennsylvania (because of its size and position) is most likely to be the tipping-point state in 2016.

2. The Favorite Son effect could be enough to swing a state. If Governor Rick Snyder (R-MI) is the Republican nominee, then Michigan goes from Solid D to weak R due to that effect, ceteris paribus. In contrast, Brian Schweitzer (D-MT) might be enough to swing Montana. Of course that is with someone who has a positive image in his own state. Michelle Bachmann will not swing Minnesota, and John Edwards will not swing North Carolina.  Consider the weird possibilities if Kathleen Sebelius is the Presidential nominee. She was an effective Governor of Kansas, arguably one of the strongest Republican states. 

3. The polarization between the states says much about the states --  but it also reflects how Barack Obama campaigned for re-election. Almost every state that he contested he won (North Carolina is the exception). He had a broader focus than Gore (Florida above all else) or Kerry (Ohio above all else) but it was only five states. In view of the resources that the Right had against him, he had to stay clear of such states as Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, and Missouri which otherwise might have been closer. But getting closer in Georgia and still losing it and losing Wisconsin would have been a disaster to his strategy.   

4. We are going to see fresh approval ratings for President Obama. The polling business does not stop on election day; it only takes a short vacation. Polling on whether Hillary Clinton or Mario Cuomo (or for that matter, Mario Rubio or Jon Huntsman) projects to win South Carolina will likely have the question "Do you approve or disapprove of the performance of Barack Obama as President?"

How well things go for President Obama determines how vulnerable almost any Democrat will be in 2016 and whether a Republican can offer a viable alternative to the status quo. The barrage of deep-pocket invective against President Obama will quickly fade from relevance in day-to-day politics. If approval ratings for the President go into the high 50s and stay there, then any Republican nominee will have potential difficulties in some of the states that President Obama didn't campaign in.

Barack Obama could not afford to campaign in Georgia, Missouri, Indiana, Montana, South Carolina, or Arizona in 2012.  He campaigned in all of those except South Carolina and Arizona in 2008.

9. Primary campaigns can leave behind an apparatus for contesting the national election. That is how Barack Obama put Indiana in play in 2008. Unlikely states might go into play because someone decides to keep a state in play because he can turn resources established in the primary into a campaign apparatus in the autumn. 

10. Some people whom we think are likely candidates will decide early that the Presidency isn't for them (think of Mike Huckabee). Some may have hidden scandals or make discrediting gaffes. There could be issues of health.

11. Doesn't winning the Big Prize all come down to personalities, perceptions of competence, and fundraising?

 

[Mehmentum]

This map is assuming that the GOP continues to ignore hispanics, or completely fails to win them over.  This is assuming a tie in the popular vote. 

Dark Red, Safe D states:  The GOP won't be winning Minnesotta, its just not swingy enough.

Light Red, Likely D states:  New Jersey could flip due to Christie.  New Mexico continues drifting lefward.  Wisconsin wouldn't budge even with a native son on the Republican ticket, I don't see Michigan or Oregon going R without a significant advantage in the nationwide popular vote.

Pink, Lean D states: The GOP's electoral problems get even worse in the next 4 years as Colorado become more Democratic than Pennsylvania, making PA the tipping point state.  Virginia will also continue to drift leftward as it has for the past few elections and would be about on par with PA and CO. I don't know whats up with Iowa and New Hampshire, they voted solidly D this time around but I wouldn't discount them swinging back to the center.  Nevada will almost be Light Red at this point.

Grey, Tossups:  North Carolina will drift to about the national average.  Ohio and Florida will reprise their roles as traditional swing states.  Remember though, the election will have been won already with CO + PA or VA.

Very Light Blue, Lean R:  Alaska had a surprising swing to the Democrats from 2008, beyond even what Palin being on the ticket would account for (there is a significant swing from 2004 as well).  I'm not quite sure why, but its worth keeping an eye on.  Montana can go D with the right Democrat.  It has two Democratic Senators and a Democratic governor. If Schweitzer is on the ticket it will probably go D.  Georgia will be in 2016 where North Carolina was in 2008.

Light Blue, Likely R: I've pretty much given up on Arizona.  It doesn't seem to be moving leftwards at all.  There are too many other factor other than just Latino growth going on there to really put this in play.  This goes doubly so for Texas.  Missouri continues to trend R, and Indiana and NE-2 look like a one off event.  Senate races have shown that the Dakotas will flip for the right Democrat, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.

Dark Blue, Safe R: Sorry Mississippi Democratic Party, its not going to flip. 

[tokar]

@tokar

I subtracted the national margin from the state margin. That’s how I got my numbers.

If we did that for Virginia, we would have:

VA – 0.98 D in 2008, + 0.41 D in 2012

Obviously, Virginia trending D.


Again, because you live in Virginia, could you tell me something? I noticed that the percentage of evangelicals voting in 2012 was way down compared to 2008. What was the reason for this?
I think they didn’t turn out because Mitt is a mormon.

Also, in MI, WI, PA and OH lots of working class whites didn’t turn out.
I think these are lost to the Democratic Party and that they will turn out next time to vote for a compassionate conservative with a populist message.

Ahhh, I understand how you got it. State margin relative to the national margin. OK.

With Virginia:
1) Need to wait a bit more for two reasons: 1, the national margin will keep going up, 2, the Virginia margin will be going up for reasons stated earlier (100,000 votes outstanding from absentee, almost all from Dem-leaning areas)
2) Turnout was down. If turnout was as high as 2008, percentage-wise (75+%), I guarantee the margin would be greater.
3) I mean I agree on a pure numbers argument that the state is trending Republican (smaller margin compared to 2008 = trend). I understand. Just you need to look at demographics and what has happened in the state. In 2004, before the military budget absolutely blew up and brought tons of new jobs to the state, there were 4.5m registered voters in the state. Fast forward to 2012 and we now have 5.4m, with the majority of those registrations in heavy-Dem-leaning areas of Northern Virginia.

I could make the same kind of argument in Louisiana with Republicans. From a pure margin standpoint, Republican margin was down, therefore one could say it is trending Democratic. But we all know lots of people, post-Katrina, have moved out of the state, mostly Democratic voters. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see it is trending Republican.
Same deal for Mississippi. Margin down, trending...Democrat??


You have to look at so many more factors than just margin to determine trend, in my opinion. Considering conservatives' problems with Latinos, states like AZ, CO, NM, NV, TX and FL are all trending Democratic regardless of what the margins say.
Considering the renewed energy of Native Americans, you could argue MT and ND are trending democratic (see 2008, and wins by Tester and Heitkamp in 2012).

It just comes down to turnout, turnout, turnout (GOTV!). The party that can energize its base better will win, just one party or another will have a much easier time since some states are trending, demographically, one way or another. It is much easier for a Democrat to mobilize the vote in Pennsylvania than a Republican since there are just more Democratic votes available to the candidate thanks to the registration margin that has been trending Democratic for years now.

I think the only states you can argue are REALLY trending republican are your usual suspects:
ID, UT, WY, NE, KS, OK, AR, LA, MS, AL, TN, KY, WV, IN, SC, MO, SD, IN. I can not reasonably justify any reason why they would be trending Democratic. I am aware that MS, AL, and SC have huge African American populations, but even with 100% turnout, the rest of the states are just too conservative to overtake. GA is an interesting case. Large black population, and things around Atlanta are starting to duplicate what has happened in PA and VA, with the majority of the vote coming from that urban center. The counties of Cobb, Fulton, DeKalb and Clayton (all around Atlanta) accounted for 29% of the vote in 2008, 28% this year.

Cobb is a R+10 county, ~300k votes
Fulton is a D+30 county, ~400k votes
Clayton is a D+70 county, ~100k votes
DeKalb is a D+55 county, ~300k votes
This is a radius of about 20-30 mi outside of Atlanta (which is the average distance for Metropolitan areas. Wikipedia for Atlanta shows counties as far out as 50-60 miles, which is probably not appropriate to be included for this. With a large enough radius I can get to 100%! ).
According to this blog post, the white registered population is down again this year: link.
Jan 01 - White 72%
Jan 07 - White 67%
2008 - White 63%
2012 - White 59%
While African American population has stood still at 30% (compared to 2008), the blogger states the voting block with the increase comes from groups that describe themselves as something other than the usual five (white, black, asian, hispanic, native american). Muslim maybe? Got me...

[opebo]

Gray and pink are the battle grounds, the grey being true tossups, the pink all leaning Democratic.

[tokar]

Gray and pink are the battle grounds, the grey being true tossups, the pink all leaning Democratic.

My sentiments exactly...except with Wisconsin being a solid Dem as opposed to lean Dem. Paul Ryan being on a ballot affected things a bit.

[Mehmentum]

Gray and pink are the battle grounds, the grey being true tossups, the pink all leaning Democratic.

Pretty much identical to my much more complicated map, at least in spirit. 

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The meme of the Midwest becoming Republican will not come to fruition. The 2016 map will look almost the same as the 2012 map if it's a close race (though Hillary would make AR a tossup, Christie would make NJ a tossup, etc.)

[MrMittens]

Map Series!!

Obama's second term a disaster

Republican: 285
Democratic: 186
Toss-Up: 67

Obama's second term a success

Republican: 154
Democratic: 332
Toss-Up: 52

Obama's second term meh quality

Republican: 191
Democratic: 233
Toss-Up: 114

Obviously very unscientific so don't savage me for these.

[pbrower2a]

Map Series!!

Obama's second term a disaster

Republican: 285
Democratic: 166
Toss-Up: 87

The Favorite Son effect disappears from Illinois, which didn't give that smashing an Obama  win in 2012. Chicagoland suburbs hold the balance of power in Illinois, and if they go R, the Democratic nominee is in big trouble.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would put Indiana in play.

Indiana? Sure -- if conditions resemble 2008 in which the democratic nominee contests Indiana and keeps it in play. If Sherrod Brown should be the Democratic nominee, then Indiana is in play. That also happens if Indiana legislates voting hours more like those of Ohio or Michigan or allows early voting, in which case Indiana no longer gives nationwide Republicans an advantage. NE-02 could again be interesting.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

What Democrat runs will matter greatly.

[Nichlemn]

"Battleground states" presume a competitive election, in which the two parties are close to parity, a la 2000, 2004, and 2012.  In elections where one candidate has a big national lead, what happens on a state-by-state level is irrelevant.  So these predictions in which a dozen states move towards the Dems and nothing moves back towards the GOP don't make much sense in the context of the question being asked.  If some states are moving towards the Dems relative to the national average, then other states have to be moving towards the GOP relative to the national average.

This. It's not really plausible for there be a close election where Democrats are competitive in (say) TX, WI and NH all at once.