2016 Battleground States?

[tokar]

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...

Unless some dark horse black candidate takes the national lead in 3 years ahead of the primaries, the candidate will most assuredly be not-black (it is looking increasingly like it will be Hillary Clinton). I forget who said it, but some prominent Democratic person said well before the general election that if Obama was white that Obama's re-election would have been a safe bet (as opposed to the idea that it would be a squeaker or possible loss). Here is your current crop of possible Democratic candidates who are black (i.e. most well-known persons):
-Mayor Michael Nutter (Philadelphia, PA). Yeah, good luck.
-Mayor Cory Booker (Newark, NJ). Don't have too much hope for him in NJ-Gov, and proven losers don't make good candidates.
-Rep. James Clyburn (SC 6th). He will be 75yo come primary season.
-Rep. Chaka Fattah (PA 2nd). He is way too liberal, and not well known outside of PA.
-Rep. John Lewis (GA 2nd). He will be 75yo come primary season.
-Rep. Charlie Rangel (NY 15th). Mired in a scandal, forget it.

I just don't see a black candidate making a run for it. As a result, the candidate will be someone more favorable to the racists of this country who can't vote for a black man. So this will help make traditional states that could have become swing because of the unfavorable demographics (read: more likely to have racists) be more "swing"y by 2016 and beyond.

Second thing to consider is that the economy will be so much better in 3 years that Obama will look like a genius (I'm just quoting this article, which I agree with: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/11/romney_obama_and_economics_the_economy_s_already_recovering_so_whoever_wins.html ). So you won't have that many center/center-right people blaming it on "Democrats" the same way center/center-left people were blaming "Republicans" in 2008.
This will help swing states which react to the economy to the Democrats more favorably (e.g. NH and IA).

Third thing to consider is the continued influence of Hispanics in states that have significant Hispanic populations. You have to believe that the next four years will bring certain reforms to allow Hispanics to achieve citizenship easier, which will result in a larger voting population of Hispanics. Here are the states currently considered "swing states" or those we will soon be considering "swing states" and their respective % population Hispanic (along with their rank out of the 50 states):
NM - #1 - 46.3% (swing)
TX - #3 - 37.6% (soon)
AZ - #4 - 29.6% (soon)
NV - #5 - 26.5% (swing)
FL - #6 - 22.5% (swing)
CO - #7 - 20.7% (swing)
GA - #24 - 8.8% (soon)
NC - #25 - 8.4% (swing)
VA - #28 - 7.9% (swing)
(every other state is under 7%...IN 6.0%, PA 5.7%, IA 5.0%, MO 3.5%, OH 3.1%, NH 2.8%)
Something to consider with NM and NV:
NM's margin of victory was greater than PA, MN and WI in both 2008 and 2012. And more than CT in 2012.
NV's margin of victory was greater than PA in both 2008 and 2012. MN in 2008, and CT in 2012.

Fourth thing to consider is Asian-American population. Asians saw a larger increase in population (percent-wise) than Hispanics. Do keep in mind that there are 50+ million Hispanics to 17+ million Asians. Both voting blocks, though, vote strongly with Democrats. Hispanics voted 71-27, while Asians bested them at 73-26. Here are the swing state rankings like above:
(Keep in mind, HI - #1 - 57.4%, CA - #2 - 14.9%, every other state is below 10%)
NV - #3 - 9.0% (swing)
VA - #8 - 6.5% (swing)
(every other "swing" state is below 4%...TX 4.4%, GA 3.8%, CO 3.7%, AZ 3.6%, PA 3.2%, FL 3.0%, NH 2.6%, NC 2.6%, IA 2.1%, MO 2.1%, IN 2.0%, NM 2.0%)

Fifth thing is African American population:
MS - #1 - 37.3%
LA - #2 - 32.0%
GA - #3 - 30.0%
MD - #4 - 29.4%
SC - #5 - 28.5%
AL - #6 - 26.4%
NC - #7 - 21.6%
DE - #8 - 21.0%
VA - #9 - 19.9%
TN - #10 - 16.8%
FL - #11 - 15.9%
...
MI - #16 - 14.2%
OH - #17 - 12.0%
TX - #18 - 11.9%
MO - #19 - 11.5%
PA - #20 - 10.8%
(every other state of note is less than 10%)
Something interesting to note: there are only three states where Obama's margin of victory in 2012 was BETTER than in 2008. They are AK and #1 and #2 on this list, MS and LA.

So all things considered...
You might as well take NV and NM off the table. Those are technically solid DEM when you consider the Hispanic populations, Asian population in NV, and that in both 2008 and 2012, their margins bested PA (which is considered a lean-DEM at this point).
PA, IA, MN and MI are off the table for 2016. A good portion of the votes in these states come from the racist vote (cling to their guns and religion as Obama put it), and that won't have an effect in 2016. Hell, just look at how Hillary did in the 2008 primary in PA (+10 points, 55/45).
You can take NH off the table. Besides going handily for Obama in 2008 and 2012, it went for Kerry in 2004. I think NH responds well to the economy and by 2016 this won't be an issue. IA, PA, and MI will also respond well with the economy since they are in the rust belt.

This leaves (in my mind): CO, AZ, TX, FL, VA, GA, NC.
CO, FL, VA, and NC are true swing states, at the moment.
GA is in the "very soon" category, maybe by 2016. The minority vote is just too big to ignore at this point. GA's margin of victory in these last two cycles were R+5.8 and R+8.0, respectively, both under 10 points.
AZ and TX are in the "soon, but not too soon" category. AZ's margin of victories were R+9.5 and R+11.5, respectively, but that Hispanic population is too hard to ignore. Unfortunately, Phoenix is not a traditional urban environment that goes 70+% for Democrats, so it'll probably be 2020 for it to be a swing state. Same deal for TX, which had a chance to be considered sooner than later, but it blew up this year. It was R+11.8 in 2008 but R+15.9 this year, which was more than MS (R+11.9), SC (R+10.9), and AK (R+13.4).


On one final note, I just saw Alaska's margin of victory...maybe it will be swing by 2016 and beyond? This is a trend, people! Haha!
2000 - R+30.95 (Bush @58.62%)
2004 - R+25.55 (Bush @61.07%)
2008 - R+21.53 (McCain @59.42%)
2012 - R+13.26 (Romney @54.51%) (99.8% precincts reporting...I think the missing precinct data is the absentee ballots because from the count as it stands now I am seeing a drop of 100,000+ votes, which seems unusual...so this margin might increase when it finally gets to 100%, we'll see.)

[tokar]

This leaves (in my mind): CO, AZ, TX, FL, VA, GA, NC.
CO, FL, VA, and NC are true swing states, at the moment.

If those are the swing states, there's no point in having a presidential election. We may as well declare the Democratic Party candidate the winner since a Democrat wouldn't need a single one of those swing states to win.

I was talking about a more realistic scenario in which the GOP does not concede the presidential election.

@LJube: I understand what you are saying, I am just pointing the reality of things.

Now, obviously if the economy tanks, we are talking about a different story all together, but if things stay status-quo, or the economy improves (as most expect it to do), then honestly, can you tell me that PA, NV, NM, MN, WI, MI and IA are battlegrounds given their electoral history in the past 4 elections?

PA hasn't gone Republican since 1988 when GWBush was riding off Reagan, and even then the margin was small. In 1984's landslide year, it was 6th (!!!!) in terms of states for Reagan, better than more traditional blue states like NY, VT and DE (DC went D+71.6, MN went D+0.2, MA was R+2.8, RI was R+3.6, MD was R+5.5, and next up was PA at R+7.35, followed by IA at R+7.38)
1984 R+7.35
1988 R+2.3
1992 D+9
1996 D+9.9
2000 D+4.2
2004 D+2.5
2008 D+10.3
2012 D+6.2
And the Dem's have a 1,000,000 (you read that right, one million) registration advantage in the state. It has been and will continue to be fools gold for Republicans.

Same story in Michigan. No wins since 1988. Margins are much better for Dems than PA starting in 1996, too.
1992 D+7.4
1996 D+13.2
2000 D+5.1
2004 D+3.4
2008 D+16.5
2012 D+7.5
It is NOT a battleground state.

MN is even worse for Republicans. It has not gone Republican since 1972! I have no clue how anyone thought it was a battleground in 2012. It wasn't. Democrats cleaned up in all levels in Minnesota this year.

WI is a bit worse than PA for Republicans, having not gone Republican since 1984.
1988 D+3.6 (better than PA)
1992 D+4.4
1996 D+10.3 (better than PA)
2000 D+0.2
2004 D+0.4
2008 D+13.9 (better than PA)
2012 D+6.8 (better than PA, even with Ryan on the ticket)

It is important to note that MI, WI and PA admittedly have given problems for Dems in non-presidential years. But in Presidential years? Forget it, the turn out is there.

Starting in 1992, NV turned a corner. And now Dems are 4 for the last 6 elections, and it is getting worse:
1992 D+2.6
1996 D+1.0
2000 R+3.6
2004 R+2.6
2008 D+13.5
2012 D+6.6
The demographics are just not favorable for Republicans with the Latino vote, and for 3 straight election cycles the polling averages have underestimated Democratic performance. Polling average of D+5, R+5 (Harry Reid ended up winning) and D+4. I expect there to be immigration reform in the next 3 years, at which point it is all over in Nevada.

Same deal for New Mexico as with New Mexico. Hell, in 2012 NM was already declared to be solid Dem. NM has gone D in 5 of the last 6 elections, with a razor thin margin in 2004. It is off the table.
1992 D+8.6
1996 D+7.5
2000 D+0.06
2004 R+0.8
2008 D+15.2
2012 D+9.9

Iowa...similar story here. Dems are 6 for 7 in the last 7 elections. I really don't see how this could be in play with a candidate like Hillary on the ballot, especially with the state being pretty liberal, socially (gay marriage is legal here).
1984 R+7.38 (7th worst state/territory for Reagan as described above)
1988 D+10.2
1992 D+6.0
1996 D+10.3
2000 D+0.3
2004 R+0.7
2008 D+9.6
2012 D+5.5

NH same story as Iowa, going Dem in 5 of the last 6 elections, with a pretty slim margin in 2000:
1992 D+1.3
1996 D+10.0
2000 R+1.2
2004 D+1.4
2008 D+9.6
2012 D+5.8
Like IA, I don't see how this would be in play with a candidate like Hillary. It has been fools gold for Republicans the last two election cycles.

Basically, the reality is that the Republican Party, unless they change their tone on certain issues like immigration reform, tax reform, healthcare reform, etc. they will continuously be playing on the defensive as the Democratic map expands into states once expected to be solid Republican (GA, NC, VA, AZ, TX) due to unfavorable demographics.
Giving Democrats all the states I mentioned above (NH, IA, MI, PA, NV, NM, WI) gives them 263, still not 270. With battlegrounds in NC, VA, AZ, GA, FL, OH and CO, it gives Republicans 164, and to win they have to run the table with those states, which is 100% possible, but becoming difficult given the demographics in these states.




@LJube + Mr. Morden:
I get the question, just I am saying that even in a close election like we saw this year where the economy was "eh", unemployment is high, and the presidential favorables were barely passable, states like PA, IA, WI and MI were really not "battlegrounds".

There are just so many factors that you can't really say what would be a battleground and what wouldn't.
If you want to say that the economy will go into depression in 2015, it could put traditional blue states like New York in play!
If the Republicans embrace latinos and immigration reform in the next 3 years, it could make Nevada and New Mexico competitive again.
If Republicans stop this war on women in the next 3 years and embrace women's rights, it will close the gender gap and make states like WI, PA, MI and OR competitive again.

What I wrote above in my long post is based on status quo, but with a better economy (since that is the way things are pointing) in 2015-2016, no changes in platforms for Republicans on immigration or women's rights. And if that is the case, I just don't see how NM, NV, PA, MI, WI, IA, NH and MN could be "battlegrounds" considering they haven't been in a long time.



Edit:
A good example of what I speak of is the 1932 election, the result of the great depression.
The Republicans had won 3 straight elections by landslides, 1920 (404-127), 1924 (382-136), and 1928 (444-87). I guarantee that after they won in 1928 they were probably not thinking that any of their states were battlegrounds. The following states went Republican in those 3 years:
CA, OR, WA, NV, ID, MT, WY, UT, AZ, CO, NM, ND, SD, NE, KS, MN, IA, MO, IL, IN, MI, OH, WV, PA, MD, DE, NJ, NY, CT, VT, NH, ME
The following states went twice for Republicans out of the 3:
KY, TN, OK, MA, RI, WI
These went only once for Republicans:
TX, NC, VA, FL
These went 0 times:
SC, GA, AL, MS, AR, LA

Then of course, we had the depression and pretty much every state became a battleground.
If there was no depression, and it was status quo, the map would probably have looked similar to 1928...

[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.

[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...

[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.