Early 2016 Base Map

[Skill and Chance]

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.

To the extent that the rural South would swing to Hillary, I think she would have a better chance in the states that Obama came close in.  I would be far more interested in how she might swing NC (the obvious one) or GA.  Obama already won it twice, but I would also expect Hillary to overperform massively in FL due to her appeal to older voters.  She obviously has a Western problem and it's really hard for me to pin down whether she is a better or worse fit than Obama for VA.  I imagine her Southern performance would be an average of Bill Clinton and Obama.  I would expect a 51/47 Clinton win against generic R to look something like this:

[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.

To the extent that the rural South would swing to Hillary, I think she would have a better chance in the states that Obama came close in.  I would be far more interested in how she might swing NC (the obvious one) or GA.  Obama already won it twice, but I would also expect Hillary to overperform massively in FL due to her appeal to older voters.  She obviously has a Western problem and it's really hard for me to pin down whether she is a better or worse fit than Obama for VA.  I imagine her Southern performance would be an average of Bill Clinton and Obama.  I would expect a 51/47 Clinton win against generic R to look something like this:

I think she's a worse fit for VA than Obama. Yes, she appeals to rural conservadems way more than he does, but that will be a lot more important in the Midwest and in Appalachia. She will do worse in VA because she appeals way less to young, white professional suburbanites than he does, and much less importantly, there will be a tiny deficit with black voters (will be negligible in most states but might be worth a point in VA). Either way, the gap between Obama and Hillary in VA wouldn't be nearly as bad as the gap between Obama and Hillary in CO, and I think she'd still be the favorite to win VA whereas she'd be the favorite to lose CO.

[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.

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

I don't think she'd win them either, but the fact that she'd take them out of safe status would make me piss myself if I was a Republican.

It would be like if polling showed a certain Republican only a few points behind in Washington or Connecticut.

[ElectionsGuy]

This is the permanent map I will have in my head until after the 2014 elections. I will make any changes necessary after then. Right now, when its really early, I will be relying on the "Safely Secure" Map for states that both candidates are almost guaranteed to win.

Here is my Safely Secure Map:

Republicans: 130
Democrats: 120

Note: Mississippi, while not overwhelmingly republican, is incedibly inelastic, so I call it Safe R for now.

Note: This is not taking any considerations for any candidates

And here is my Safely/Likely Secure Map:

Republicans: 191
Democrats: 185

Note: NE-2 is not lean republican. Many people don't realize that it got much more republican over redistricting, it used to be lean republican, it is now likely republican around the PVI of Georgia.

Note: Likely = >50%, Safely = >70%.

Likely R: Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, NE-2, South Carolina
Likely D: Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington

[PolitiJunkie]

This is the permanent map I will have in my head until after the 2014 elections. I will make any changes necessary after then. Right now, when its really early, I will be relying on the "Safely Secure" Map for states that both candidates are almost guaranteed to win.

Here is my Safely Secure Map:

Republicans: 130
Democrats: 120

Note: Mississippi, while not overwhelmingly republican, is incedibly inelastic, so I call it Safe R for now.

Note: This is not taking any considerations for any candidates

And here is my Likely Secure Map:

Republicans: 191
Democrats: 185

Note: NE-2 is not lean republican. Many people don't realize that it got much more republican over redistricting, it used to be lean republican, it is now likely republican around the PVI of Georgia.

Note: Likely = >50%, Safely = >70%.

Likely R: Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, NE-2, South Carolina
Likely D: Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington

Incredibly partisan. Obama did better in New Mexico and Michigan than Romney did in Arizona or Georgia. Stop trolling.

[ElectionsGuy]

This is the permanent map I will have in my head until after the 2014 elections. I will make any changes necessary after then. Right now, when its really early, I will be relying on the "Safely Secure" Map for states that both candidates are almost guaranteed to win.

Here is my Safely Secure Map:

Republicans: 130
Democrats: 120

Note: Mississippi, while not overwhelmingly republican, is incedibly inelastic, so I call it Safe R for now.

Note: This is not taking any considerations for any candidates

And here is my Likely Secure Map:

Republicans: 191
Democrats: 185

Note: NE-2 is not lean republican. Many people don't realize that it got much more republican over redistricting, it used to be lean republican, it is now likely republican around the PVI of Georgia.

Note: Likely = >50%, Safely = >70%.

Likely R: Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, NE-2, South Carolina
Likely D: Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington

Incredibly partisan. Obama did better in New Mexico and Michigan than Romney did in Arizona or Georgia. Stop trolling.

Once again, I will explain.

A lot of republican states happen to be much more secure than democratic states. Even with a fair glance, democrats have more electoral votes than republicans overall, this is because a lot of states lean their way, while most republican states are safe/likely and don't lean. So that's the reason why republicans have more Safe/Likely territory.

Another thing is that I am not taking in Obama scores, I'm taking in PVI and margin compared to national score. That way it is not biased. Sure, Obama did better in Michigan than Romney did in Georgia, but in a tied/close election, that won't be the case. You see, in a tied election Illinois would be just as partisan as Missouri would be, and Delaware would be just as partisan as Indiana.

Again, a lot of the competitive territory happens to be states that Obama won easily, but this is because he won the national election by 4 points. In a close election, some of these states that Obama won would be flipped or at least competitive. For example, Virginia, Ohio, and Florida would be flipped and states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, or Nevada would be very competitive.

Anything else wrong here that I didn't mention?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dems clearly start out with 272 and pending are Ohio, Va, and Florida.

[barfbag]

Dems clearly start out with 272 and pending are Ohio, Va, and Florida.

We can't call such a thing 3 years in advance. Stop

[Flake]

Dems clearly start out with 272 and pending are Ohio, Va, and Florida.

We can't call such a thing 3 years in advance. Stop

It isn't a far fetched idea when you consider that Hillary Clinton will [most likely] be the Democratic nominee.

Women are now 51-38 for the Democratic Party according to an NBC poll which will spell out trouble for GOP in the 2014 midterms; even white women who voted for the Republican Party in 2010 and 2012 are leaning for the Democrats. This will be terrible for the Republican Party if they keep attacking womens rights, the map is very plausible. I know you're going to say "But Nevada can't be a Democratic stronghold! Neither can Colorado or New Hampshire!" Well when you see how women are recognizing themselves more and more as Democrats while men are staying at the same rate for Republicans, with a higher female vote in elections, especially presidential elections, than men, you have a map that is impossible for Republicans to win and the Democrats can only maintain or expand their lead in the electoral vote and popular vote.

So basically: This large base line for the Democrats has a pretty large chance of happening unless the Republicans [politicians in power, not most of the members] stop being asshats to women.

[opebo]

It isn't a far fetched idea when you consider that Hillary Clinton will [most likely] be the Democratic nominee.

You're quite right the antiwoman party has problems with women, but this is the most Democratic-friendly map that makes sense to me:

[barfbag]

You guys are coloring in way too many states.