Early 2016 Base Map

[Vern]

I believe we are going to have 10 battleground states in 2016.

[ElectionsGuy]

That's fine, but given the previous 3-4 maps you posted there, your final map represents wishful thinking about NH, CO, WI, IA, and PA - they're all clearly slightly lean D.

I was thinking that the republican trend with white voters might put those states in play, they're all just slightly tilted left of the nation by 1 or 2 points. Just like I thought the democratic trend with Hispanic voters would tip NM to likely D, in 2008 and 2012 it was at the edge of lean D.

I'm not sure there's such a clear long term trend with the whites, more just a marked difference between '08 and '12 based mostly on '08 being the abnormal outlier. 

2000: Bush 55%, Gore 42% (13% win) + Gore Win by 0.5% = R+13.5%
2004: Bush 58%, Kerry 41% (17% win) + Bush win by 2.4% = R+14.6%
2008: McCain 55%, Obama 43% (12% win) + Obama win by 7.2% = R+19.2%
2012: Romney 59%, Obama 39% (20% win) + Obama win by 3.9% = R+23.9%

Is this not clear enough?

[opebo]

2000: Bush 55%, Gore 42% (13% win) + Gore Win by 0.5% = R+13.5%
2004: Bush 58%, Kerry 41% (17% win) + Bush win by 2.4% = R+14.6%
2008: McCain 55%, Obama 43% (12% win) + Obama win by 7.2% = R+19.2%
2012: Romney 59%, Obama 39% (20% win) + Obama win by 3.9% = R+23.9%

Is this not clear enough?

Obama's black.

[ElectionsGuy]

2000: Bush 55%, Gore 42% (13% win) + Gore Win by 0.5% = R+13.5%
2004: Bush 58%, Kerry 41% (17% win) + Bush win by 2.4% = R+14.6%
2008: McCain 55%, Obama 43% (12% win) + Obama win by 7.2% = R+19.2%
2012: Romney 59%, Obama 39% (20% win) + Obama win by 3.9% = R+23.9%

Is this not clear enough?

Obama's black.

Really? So you really think half the country is just racist? Its really unacceptable that you or many other liberal democrats can't accept the fact the racism is dying off. It's also too bad that they want (yes, that's right) racism in this country so they can keep blaming the GOP for racism. It's too bad you can't just accept the trend and make excuses to offset the reality.

I'm sorry if this was a strong reaction but these kind of excuses have got to stop.

[opebo]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really? So you really think half the country is just racist? Its really unacceptable that you or many other liberal democrats can't accept the fact the racism is dying off. It's also too bad that they want (yes, that's right) racism in this country so they can keep blaming the GOP for racism. It's too bad you can't just accept the trend and make excuses to offset the reality.

I'm sorry if this was a strong reaction but these kind of excuses have got to stop.

But the racists who are dying off are also the Republicans who are dying off, WC.  They're your lifeblood.

[ElectionsGuy]

Obama's black.

Really? So you really think half the country is just racist? Its really unacceptable that you or many other liberal democrats can't accept the fact the racism is dying off. It's also too bad that they want (yes, that's right) racism in this country so they can keep blaming the GOP for racism. It's too bad you can't just accept the trend and make excuses to offset the reality.

I'm sorry if this was a strong reaction but these kind of excuses have got to stop.

But the racist who are dying off are also the Republicans who are dying off, WC.  They're your lifeblood.
[/quote]

The GOP isn't a racist party, it never was a racist party. The democratic party was a racist party pre-1960. No political parties are racist now and the only people who are racist are the old republicans who once were democrats (with some extremist rarer cases as well). Do you live in a world were nothing can improve for republicans and everything can improve for democrats? If so that is a very flawed and wishful way of thinking as I can almost guarantee you that the GOP will come back some time in the next decade, and it will come out of nowhere after the democrats thought they had it all. Just like democrat Bill Clinton came out of the blue and wiped H.W. Bush out in '92 after a long drought through the 70's and 80's. You can't simply think that republicans will just die off, if so we don't have a two-party system, and if we don't have a two-party system we don't have the United States of America.

[opebo]

WC I never said the GOP wouldn't have some successes, I just said they're racist.

[ElectionsGuy]

WC I never said the GOP wouldn't have some successes, I just said they're racist.

OK, but you did say that they are dying off which leads me to believe that you think they will keep doing worse. Anyway I see that you got basically nothing out of what I said, so I'm not even going to bother anymore, let's end this.

[barfbag]

2000: Bush 55%, Gore 42% (13% win) + Gore Win by 0.5% = R+13.5%
2004: Bush 58%, Kerry 41% (17% win) + Bush win by 2.4% = R+14.6%
2008: McCain 55%, Obama 43% (12% win) + Obama win by 7.2% = R+19.2%
2012: Romney 59%, Obama 39% (20% win) + Obama win by 3.9% = R+23.9%

Is this not clear enough?

Obama's black.

So it could be argued that this country is racist against whites now.

[TeePee4Prez]

PA= Fools gold for the GOP.  I'm surprised at how many Tossups.  The faster growing parts are trending D and the rapidly declining parts are trending R.  It will join it's NE Corridor counterparts soon enough.  Support for gay marriage is actually 7th-8th highest of states that don't have it yet.  Conservatives= Keep dreaming and pouring money into the pit!

[Tender Branson]

Base map for a Hillary Clinton vs. Generic R race:

Maybe add NV and NM to Clinton.

[Senator Cris]

[opebo]

Doesn't really make a lot of sense to put Michigan as less D leaning than Minnesota.. unless you're thinking of some elasticity analysis.  MI was way more D in 2012 than MN.

[Senator Cris]

Doesn't really make a lot of sense to put Michigan as less D leaning than Minnesota.. unless you're thinking of some elasticity analysis.  MI was way more D in 2012 than MN.

In fact I was undecided on how to place MI

[barfbag]

[opebo]

barfbag, you have Georgia as more of a base GOP state than Tennessee?!

[ElectionsGuy]

lol Barfbag, this isn't the 90's anymore, Tennessee is solidly republican.

Also, if you have Georgia and Arizona as likely, you might as well have Indiana and Missouri as likely too. Maine should be filled in as likely D too. That is all.

[PolitiJunkie]

lol Barfbag, this isn't the 90's anymore, Tennessee is solidly republican.

Also, if you have Georgia and Arizona as likely, you might as well have Indiana and Missouri as likely too. Maine should be filled in as likely D too. That is all.

Obama won Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, and Maine by a larger margin than Romney won Missouri, Arizona, or Georgia. Also, he won Oregon and Maine by a larger margin than Romney won Indiana, South Carolina, or Mississippi. Finally, he won Maine by a larger margin than Romney won Alaska or Montana. Now, personally, I don't consider any of the states I just mentioned to be toss-ups, but you have to be consistent. You can't call Maine a toss-up but Georgia Safe R when Obama won Maine by 15.29% and Romney won Georgia by 7.82%.

[ElectionsGuy]

lol Barfbag, this isn't the 90's anymore, Tennessee is solidly republican.

Also, if you have Georgia and Arizona as likely, you might as well have Indiana and Missouri as likely too. Maine should be filled in as likely D too. That is all.

Obama won Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, and Maine by a larger margin than Romney won Missouri, Arizona, or Georgia. Also, he won Oregon and Maine by a larger margin than Romney won Indiana, South Carolina, or Mississippi. Finally, he won Maine by a larger margin than Romney won Alaska or Montana. Now, personally, I don't consider any of the states I just mentioned to be toss-ups, but you have to be consistent. You can't call Maine a toss-up but Georgia Safe R when Obama won Maine by 15.29% and Romney won Georgia by 7.82%.

I realize this, but we're doing this with all things being equal in the popular vote. Missouri, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, Mississippi, Alaska, and Montana are all more right wing than Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, and Maine in a tied election. We're not taking in Obama scores here, were taking in national trends and the score relative to the country as a whole therefore the ratings are not more favorable toward one party.

And that last comment there, I believe both Maine and Georgia should be likely D/R. That's what I said to barfbag.

[barfbag]

All I'm doing is averaging the last four elections and coloring the map in more or less each time.

[PolitiJunkie]

All I'm doing is averaging the last four elections and coloring the map in more or less each time.

But the results of the 2000 election are less relevant to the results of the 2016 election than, say, the 2012 election, so your method is garbage.

[barfbag]

All I'm doing is averaging the last four elections and coloring the map in more or less each time.

But the results of the 2000 election are less relevant to the results of the 2016 election than, say, the 2012 election, so your method is garbage.

It's a base map. No one should be predicting states yet. We could always have a few Indianas.

[IceSpear]

Base map for a Hillary Clinton vs. Generic R race:

Maybe add NV and NM to Clinton.

Tennessee is always a point or two more Democratic than Kentucky, so that should be a tossup as well. In this scenario Indiana would likely be a tossup again too.

[barfbag]

Base map for a Hillary Clinton vs. Generic R race:

Maybe add NV and NM to Clinton.

Tennessee is always a point or two more Democratic than Kentucky, so that should be a tossup as well. In this scenario Indiana would likely be a tossup again too.

I don't think she'd win WV, KY, or LA.

[PolitiJunkie]

Base map for a Hillary Clinton vs. Generic R race:

Maybe add NV and NM to Clinton.

Tennessee is always a point or two more Democratic than Kentucky, so that should be a tossup as well. In this scenario Indiana would likely be a tossup again too.

I don't think she'd win WV, KY, or LA.

Depends on the candidate. It's kind of strange- her best chances to win states like WV/KY/LA are against a moderate or an extremist. What I mean is, a ticket like Clinton/Warner might defeat a ticket like Christie/Martinez in WV/KY/LA because the Christie/Martinez ticket is the wrong type of Republican ticket for those states- moderate, more focused on fiscal issues than social ones (despite their raging social conservatism, WV and KY happen to be pretty fiscally liberal), from urban blue states, etc. The other side of the issue is that if the Republican candidate was simply a weak extremist, like Ted Cruz, Clinton would have a chance for other, more obvious reasons. Clinton's worst chances to win the state is if she's running against someone in between those two groups- a solid Evangelical conservative who would at least be competitive against Hillary nationwide. The candidate that comes to mind is Scott Walker: I doubt he'd beat Hillary overall, but he is the candidate who would easily beat Hillary in Appalachia. Whatever happens though, the real story is Hillary's IMPROVEMENT in Appalachia. She could lose West Virginia, Kentucky, and Louisiana, heck she could even lose Arkansas, but the story would be her losing by 5 points in states Obama lost by 20-30 points.