Flipping states with low/high electoral votes. which is harder to do?

[User157088589849]

I say states with low electoral college votes are harder to flip. Unless you get a population boom, its hard to find new voters, drive up yourparty registation and increase the % of your core vote. If no population boom happens your solely reliant on a change of demographics and if that doesn't happen where can you go.

It must be very frustrating for democrats nationally that have people in states like the dakotas and montant that send progressives to washington yet never vote for them nationally.

[pbrower2a]

Probably no connection. Florida, Ohio, and Virginia are close to the national average in Presidential votes -- but so is Colorado which by this criterion is among the "small states" -- and those are the arguable swing states. Pennsylvania is close to the national average and will likely be the tipping-point state of 2016.

California, Texas, and New York are extremely tough to flip. On the other side...

Connecticut and Michigan have voted together for a long time. So have Arkansas and Tennessee. So it is not a question of "big" and "small". 

Toughest to flip:

Republican

Utah
Idaho
Wyoming
Third Congressional District of Nebraska*
Oklahoma
Alabama
Kansas
North Dakota
Mississippi
South Carolina
Texas
Indiana

Democratic

DC*
Vermont
Hawaii
Rhode Island
Massachusetts
New York
California
Washington
Maryland
Delaware
Minnesota

*Technically not a state, but it votes as such or the state separates its electoral votes

Indiana in 2008 reflects that everything that could go wrong for the GOP went wrong in the Presidential election. The Republican machine got complacent, the Democrat campaigned from the neighboring state and paid attention to it, and a big industry in the state (RV's) got the triple-whammy of a credit crunch, an economic downturn, and a spike in gas prices.   

[pbrower2a]

Based on 1992-2012:

Six times Republican
5R, 1D
4R  2D
even (white)
4D 2R
5D 1R
Six times Democratic

Are you satisfied with this color plan? I'm not. I would never confuse Virginia and West Virginia, which rarely vote together.

Slight modification:

Clinton twice, Obama defeated by 10% twice go to green:

[Mr. Morden]

I say states with low electoral college votes are harder to flip. Unless you get a population boom, its hard to find new voters, drive up yourparty registation and increase the % of your core vote. If no population boom happens your solely reliant on a change of demographics and if that doesn't happen where can you go.

This argument makes no sense.  It depends on how big the margin you need to catch up is.  But if you've got an equal %age margin to make up in both the larger state and the smaller state, then it should be the same.  In a state with 10 million people, you've got 10 times as many people as in a state with 1 million people (duh).  So you've potentially got 10 times as many swing voters you can target, but also 10 times as many people that you need to sway if you're down by the same percentage margin as in the lower population state.  The two effects should cancel out.

[sg0508]

Not a good question. It depends upon the state demographics and the margin needed to reverse. 

[DS0816]

The Top 21 states have double digit electoral votes. The ones that are flippable: Florida (29 electoral votes), Ohio (18), Georgia (16), North Carolina (15), Virginia (13), Arizona (11), Indiana (11), Missouri (10), and Wisconsin (10).

Those with single-digit electoral votes which could be flipped: Colorado (9), Iowa (6), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), and Montana (3).

Right now it appears the more heavily-populous states have the potential. But it's having more to do with the campaigning. The Democrats didn't try hard enough in Mont., in 2008, where President Obama won over the female vote (as he did in Mo. and Ga.). That's because neither party is trying to win an electoral-vote blowout (which hasn't happened since the 1980s). So, it's "red states" vs. "blue states" and then in-betweens.

If one clings to President Obama's 2008 and 2012 maps, as a measure of success and failure for Democrats, he'd figure Arkansas and West Virginia are gone. But I think Hillary Cllnton would have won those states. She would have had a tougher time and not have won in Kentucky and Tennessee. And probably not in Louisiana. These are states that voted for her husband in both 1992 and 1996. But it's a re-routing to victory for the Democrats anyway as Virginia is now more likely to carry for the party than West Virginia. And she too would have performed better there, with its 13 electoral votes, than in the smaller neighbor, with 5 electoral votes.

The smaller states can be persuaded. The percentage margin exaggerates performance because each percentage point in margin is reaped a lot easily (compared with heavily-populous states). It's clear with examples of North Dakota and South Dakota, both with 3 electoral votes, as the raw-vote margins don't appear that greatly substantial. Utah would be the last in feasibility for Democrats, perhaps, because it was the No. 1 best-performing Republican state from 1976 to 2004 and again in 2012. But I think Oklahoma, with 7 electoral votes, is really the absolute worst for Democratic candidates because, even when George W. Bush brought down John McCain and his Republican party in Election 2008, every county in that state was still in the GOP column.

[Sbane]

Demographics and growth are definitely in play, which can affect both small and big states. Everything being equal though, it will be harder to flip a larger state only because it will take a greater investment to make it happen. Say Texas was ever in the position of where Indiana was in 2008, it is likelier that the Democratic candidate will not try as hard for Texas just because of the large investment required. If it could be the tipping point state, maybe, but Indiana wasn't a tipping point state. That was just a play by Obama to get a bigger EV margin.

[Abhakhazia]

Probably no connection. Florida, Ohio, and Virginia are close to the national average in Presidential votes -- but so is Colorado which by this criterion is among the "small states" -- and those are the arguable swing states. Pennsylvania is close to the national average and will likely be the tipping-point state of 2016.

California, Texas, and New York are extremely tough to flip. On the other side...

Connecticut and Michigan have voted together for a long time. So have Arkansas and Tennessee. So it is not a question of "big" and "small". 

Toughest to flip:

Republican

Utah
Idaho
Wyoming
Third Congressional District of Nebraska*
Oklahoma
Alabama
Kansas
North Dakota
Mississippi
South Carolina
Texas
Indiana

Democratic

DC*
Vermont
Hawaii
Rhode Island
Massachusetts
New York
California
Washington
Maryland
Delaware
Minnesota

*Technically not a state, but it votes as such or the state separates its electoral votes

Indiana in 2008 reflects that everything that could go wrong for the GOP went wrong in the Presidential election. The Republican machine got complacent, the Democrat campaigned from the neighboring state and paid attention to it, and a big industry in the state (RV's) got the triple-whammy of a credit crunch, an economic downturn, and a spike in gas prices.   

People vastly overestimate Minnesota and Washington's blueness. In a landslide year, they'd be flipped easily.

[pbrower2a]

Probably no connection. Florida, Ohio, and Virginia are close to the national average in Presidential votes -- but so is Colorado which by this criterion is among the "small states" -- and those are the arguable swing states. Pennsylvania is close to the national average and will likely be the tipping-point state of 2016.

California, Texas, and New York are extremely tough to flip. On the other side...

Connecticut and Michigan have voted together for a long time. So have Arkansas and Tennessee. So it is not a question of "big" and "small". 

Indiana in 2008 reflects that everything that could go wrong for the GOP went wrong in the Presidential election. The Republican machine got complacent, the Democrat campaigned from the neighboring state and paid attention to it, and a big industry in the state (RV's) got the triple-whammy of a credit crunch, an economic downturn, and a spike in gas prices.   

People vastly overestimate Minnesota and Washington's blueness. In a landslide year, they'd be flipped easily.

An R landslide analogous to the sort of D landslide that could flip Texas would flip Minnesota and Washington. At that one is discussing at least 410 electoral votes.

I put Indiana in the list despite 2008. 

[DS0816]

People vastly overestimate Minnesota and Washington's blueness. In a landslide year, they'd be flipped easily.

No.

In order for a Republican to win over Minnesota and Washington, he would have to win the U.S. Popular Vote by a margin in the upper single digits. That hasn't happened since George Bush in 1988. And he lost Wash. after it voted for Ronald Reagan in 1984 and 1988 despite beating Michael Dukakis nationally by R+7.73. And Minn. hasn't colored red since 1972!

Nothing could come "easily" with the notion of those two states voting for a Republican presidential nominee in a general election.