Nevada: Long Gone?

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

Of course, its part of teh firewall

(some states just are not aware yet that they are Democratic)

You forgot to add South Carolina (trending D fast just like Georgia and North Carolina, should be a swing state in 2016.) You also forgot West Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, and Louisiana because future president-elect Hillary Clinton will make those part of teh firewall too. And Montana cuz Schweitzer will make it D. And Alaska cuz they got sick of Sarah Palin.

It's clear the Grumpy Old Party-poopers are done.

[stevekamp]

The Clark County (Vegas) percentage -- it was 56.42% in 2012 and Obama won Clark by 100,883 and Nevada by 67,806.

In 2004 it was 51.66% and 26,430, and Obama lost Nevada by 21,500.

Between 2004 and 2012 the state total vote rose by 185,331 -- D raw up 134,183, R raw up only 44,877 (most in 2012 -- up from 2008 by about 51,000, D down only 2400)

The Atlas now has Clark County precinct data.

[ElectionsGuy]

Of course, its part of teh firewall

(some states just are not aware yet that they are Democratic)

Are you mocking the Dems or are you just pessimistic?

[barfbag]

Of course, its part of teh firewall

(some states just are not aware yet that they are Democratic)

You forgot to add South Carolina (trending D fast just like Georgia and North Carolina, should be a swing state in 2016.) You also forgot West Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, and Louisiana because future president-elect Hillary Clinton will make those part of teh firewall too. And Montana cuz Schweitzer will make it D. And Alaska cuz they got sick of Sarah Palin.

It's clear the Grumpy Old Party-poopers are done.

I think South Carolina trends back and forth around the same margin where the Republicans are in the mid-upper 50's and Democrats are in the low-mid 40's. As recent as 2008, South Carolina trended to the right. It only trended one point to the left in 2012. The black vote was also huge for Obama. Had Hillary Clinton been the nominee, McCain and Romney would've been at about 57-58%. Romney won by 11 and lost by 4 which is 15 to the right. McCain won by 9 and lost by 7 which is 16 points to the right. At this rate, it would take 14 more election cycles for the parties to break even. It's not trending fast. I believe it was 14 points to the right in 2004 and 16 points to the right in 2000. We're looking at a trend of 2 points to the left, followed by 2 points to the right, and then followed by another 1 point trend to the left.

[Consciously Unconscious]

Of course, its part of teh firewall

(some states just are not aware yet that they are Democratic)

Your forgot Oklahoma.

[DS0816]

Voted somewhere in between. In between Options 1 and 2 in particular, as it will mostly likely continue to be contested by Republicans in the same way Minnesota and Michigan are contested by Republicans. It most likely could be won still with favorable conditions and a lot of effort, but soon it will become like New Mexico- A Lean, bordering on Likely D state.

Exactly. Nevada is probably going to be bit like NM.

But NM and NV trended Republican in 2012 even though Obama won those states. If Republicans can dislodge the hard right they can take NV if not its gonna be a long road to hoe. NM is a little harder to win than NV.

This is true. I expect Nevada to stay as a battleground and New Mexico to become light blue. Based on the last four elections, New Mexico has voted for the winners, but trended to the left. We need an election to compare 2012 to first. 2008 was a bad year for the GOP and Romney didn't spend any time in New Mexico.

That's wishful thinking. Nevada has the highest unemployment rate in the nation, yet it easily voted for Obama.

I can't help they voted against their economic interests. Maybe they'll thank him by voting for another Democrat or by then maybe they'll have learned their lesson. They pretty much always vote for the winner.

That statement is true of the states of the Old Confederacy which are deep up the buttocks of Republican presidential candidates. But your wishful thinking doesn't change the facts.

Over the past 20 years, we've seen drop-offs of former presidential bellwether states. President Obama's home state of Illinois and Vice President Biden's home state of Delaware are with the Democrats. Kentucky and Tennessee are with the Republicans. Missouri, especially with its women, are in the Republican column. So it's no stretch to look at longtime bellwethers Nevada and New Mexico, to note their conspicuous Democratic tilts in both 2008 and 2012, and consider that they have made a more pronounced move into the Democratic column.

When one or two bellwethers drop off, another picks up. But Nevada and New Mexico may retain their bellwether status (in terms of voting with the winner), in what is now a Democratic realigning presidential period which began in 2008, in which all prevailing Democrats carry both states like they're base states. Hell, the previous realigning presidential period of 1968 to 2004 saw Virginia go to the Republican column and carry for all its winners and losers. (It was in the column for the two-term-elected Dwight Eisenhower, in the 1950s, after having said no in the 1920s to Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge.)

[DS0816]

Short term it [Nevada] is competitive, long term it becomes like New Mexico.

It should be really interesting to note that though the margin of victory was bigger for Obama in New Mexico than in Nevada, he received only a half percentage more overall.

It should also be noted that Nevada and New Mexico have had only presidential election in which they colored differently: 2000. That, of course, was the one year on record, since N.M. entered statehood and first voted in Election 1912, in which this nation had a split outcome of the winners for the Electoral College and U.S. Popular Vote.

[CatoMinor]

Of course, its part of teh firewall

(some states just are not aware yet that they are Democratic)

Are you mocking the Dems or are you just pessimistic?

Mocking lol.

[Goldwater]

No, I think the Republicans will start preforming among Hispanics, because it will be the only way for them to survive. Of course, how long it takes for them to realize this is another story...

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I'd have to go with Option 2.  Nevada is by no means out of reach for Republicans.  It still has sizable populations of Mormons and libertarians, and although the Latinos have made it swing toward Democrats, Republicans certainly can be competitive there as well by changing their tactics and rhetoric on illegal immigration and playing up their social conservatism in Latino outreach (though that's probably not a smart strategy to win moderates, so maybe more in Spanish campaign ads, etc.)  It's also important to remember that as future generations of Latinos assimilate more, they will probably become more supportive of the GOP than they are now.  Whether it'll be enough without stronger outreach is still anybody's guess, though.

[ElectionsGuy]

Of course, its part of teh firewall

(some states just are not aware yet that they are Democratic)

Are you mocking the Dems or are you just pessimistic?

Mocking lol.

So are you mocking? I questioned your seriousness when you said "Teh Firewall".

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

more in Spanish campaign ads, etc.

Yeah, that should do it.

[Non Swing Voter]

Republicans are really hopeful...

Nevada is like Virginia, it reached the tipping point (for Presidential elections)... on top of that, the fastest growing part of the state votes Democrat by huge margins, just like Virginia. 

Republicans can win Nevada... in a massive blowout.

[eric82oslo]

Nevada is already one of the least religious states (despite the Mormon presence) and the 6th most multicultural and seeing the fastest demographic change of probably any of the 50 states. I'm sure that Obama only did so (relatively) poorly there in 2012 because Nevada had by far the highest unemployment rate in the nation. Once the US economy in general - and the hardest hit states Nevada and Florida in particular - start to recover more profoundly from the mess - and there are already many signs of that, like property values increasing and stock markets soaring - I'm sure that both Nevada and Florida - but in particular Nevada - will take a heavy dive to the left. Democrats' potential is so much stronger in both of these two states.

[Non Swing Voter]

Nevada is already one of the least religious states (despite the Mormon presence) and the 6th most multicultural and seeing the fastest demographic change of probably any of the 50 states. I'm sure that Obama only did so (relatively) poorly there in 2012 because Nevada had by far the highest unemployment rate in the nation. Once the US economy in general - and the hardest hit states Nevada and Florida in particular - start to recover more profoundly from the mess - and there are already many signs of that, like property values increasing and stock markets soaring - I'm sure that both Nevada and Florida - but in particular Nevada - will take a heavy dive to the left. Democrats' potential is so much stronger in both of these two states.

I think the GOP vote also spiked a bit because of the Mormon presence.  The overall trend is horrible for Republicans there though.  I don't get why this is hard for our GOP friends to figure out.  If one part of the state is consistently voting 60-40 democratic, and that same part of the state is increasing as a share of the population then that state is going to trend democratic as well.  This really isn't hard.

[ElectionsGuy]

Nevada is already one of the least religious states (despite the Mormon presence) and the 6th most multicultural and seeing the fastest demographic change of probably any of the 50 states. I'm sure that Obama only did so (relatively) poorly there in 2012 because Nevada had by far the highest unemployment rate in the nation. Once the US economy in general - and the hardest hit states Nevada and Florida in particular - start to recover more profoundly from the mess - and there are already many signs of that, like property values increasing and stock markets soaring - I'm sure that both Nevada and Florida - but in particular Nevada - will take a heavy dive to the left. Democrats' potential is so much stronger in both of these two states.

I think the GOP vote also spiked a bit because of the Mormon presence.  The overall trend is horrible for Republicans there though.  I don't get why this is hard for our GOP friends to figure out.  If one part of the state is consistently voting 60-40 democratic, and that same part of the state is increasing as a share of the population then that state is going to trend democratic as well.  This really isn't hard.

Mormon presence is only in rural parts of the state and maybe a little bit in Clark County, besides that its really not religious. I understand what you're saying here, Clark County is 72% of the population and its the most democratic part of the state (going 56% for Obama, if I remember), and the population % is increasing, so that equals a democratic trend, however Clark County could vote more republican, thus trending republican. I think you assume too much that growth = more democratic vote, but that's not always the case and shouldn't be assumed as such. By the way, how much of a landslide do you think the republicans would have to get to win Nevada?

[Non Swing Voter]

Nevada is already one of the least religious states (despite the Mormon presence) and the 6th most multicultural and seeing the fastest demographic change of probably any of the 50 states. I'm sure that Obama only did so (relatively) poorly there in 2012 because Nevada had by far the highest unemployment rate in the nation. Once the US economy in general - and the hardest hit states Nevada and Florida in particular - start to recover more profoundly from the mess - and there are already many signs of that, like property values increasing and stock markets soaring - I'm sure that both Nevada and Florida - but in particular Nevada - will take a heavy dive to the left. Democrats' potential is so much stronger in both of these two states.

I think the GOP vote also spiked a bit because of the Mormon presence.  The overall trend is horrible for Republicans there though.  I don't get why this is hard for our GOP friends to figure out.  If one part of the state is consistently voting 60-40 democratic, and that same part of the state is increasing as a share of the population then that state is going to trend democratic as well.  This really isn't hard.

Mormon presence is only in rural parts of the state and maybe a little bit in Clark County, besides that its really not religious. I understand what you're saying here, Clark County is 72% of the population and its the most democratic part of the state (going 56% for Obama, if I remember), and the population % is increasing, so that equals a democratic trend, however Clark County could vote more republican, thus trending republican. I think you assume too much that growth = more democratic vote, but that's not always the case and shouldn't be assumed as such. By the way, how much of a landslide do you think the republicans would have to get to win Nevada?

Your last point about growth =/= democratic vote per se is valid, but in this case growth DOES = more democratic vote because the growth is almost entirely from Hispanics and west coast transplants.  So it would take a political realignment for that growth to not be among democrats.

I honestly think Republicans would have to win the national popular vote by a 5 point margin to win Nevada and even then it would be really tight.  I also don't think Republicans will win the national popular vote for a while because the economy was pretty unfavorable to Obama when he ran for re-election and most of the country thought the country was on the wrong track and he still won by a fairly substantial margin by winning over his base groups (minorities + educated whites + other urban voters).  The Obama coalition is increasing as a share of the overall population and it's increasing in a bunch of swing states...

I therefore think there is a 90% chance Democrats win the White House in 2016 and a 95% chance they win Nevada in 2016.

[ElectionsGuy]

Nevada is already one of the least religious states (despite the Mormon presence) and the 6th most multicultural and seeing the fastest demographic change of probably any of the 50 states. I'm sure that Obama only did so (relatively) poorly there in 2012 because Nevada had by far the highest unemployment rate in the nation. Once the US economy in general - and the hardest hit states Nevada and Florida in particular - start to recover more profoundly from the mess - and there are already many signs of that, like property values increasing and stock markets soaring - I'm sure that both Nevada and Florida - but in particular Nevada - will take a heavy dive to the left. Democrats' potential is so much stronger in both of these two states.

I think the GOP vote also spiked a bit because of the Mormon presence.  The overall trend is horrible for Republicans there though.  I don't get why this is hard for our GOP friends to figure out.  If one part of the state is consistently voting 60-40 democratic, and that same part of the state is increasing as a share of the population then that state is going to trend democratic as well.  This really isn't hard.

Mormon presence is only in rural parts of the state and maybe a little bit in Clark County, besides that its really not religious. I understand what you're saying here, Clark County is 72% of the population and its the most democratic part of the state (going 56% for Obama, if I remember), and the population % is increasing, so that equals a democratic trend, however Clark County could vote more republican, thus trending republican. I think you assume too much that growth = more democratic vote, but that's not always the case and shouldn't be assumed as such. By the way, how much of a landslide do you think the republicans would have to get to win Nevada?

Your last point about growth =/= democratic vote per se is valid, but in this case growth DOES = more democratic vote because the growth is almost entirely from Hispanics and west coast transplants.  So it would take a political realignment for that growth to not be among democrats.

I honestly think Republicans would have to win the national popular vote by a 5 point margin to win Nevada and even then it would be really tight.  I also don't think Republicans will win the national popular vote for a while because the economy was pretty unfavorable to Obama when he ran for re-election and most of the country thought the country was on the wrong track and he still won by a fairly substantial margin by winning over his base groups (minorities + educated whites + other urban voters).  The Obama coalition is increasing as a share of the overall population and it's increasing in a bunch of swing states...

I therefore think there is a 90% chance Democrats win the White House in 2016 and a 95% chance they win Nevada in 2016.

OK, the thing here is that your assuming all the positive democratic trends right now will always continue into the future and therefore democrats will always do good. It's a nice formula, and its comfortable and easy to assume, but what most democrats don't realize is that whites are moving in a republican direction, which seems unlikely to most democrats, but Hispanic voters are moving left, and that's extra emphasized and obvious. We assume that the current numbers right now will just stay the same or get better for democrats, and because population of those numbers and statistics are increasing, it can only mean better for democrats.

I usually try to be non-partisan and fair to both sides when it comes to election trends, but this has got me pessimistic lately. If your so confident about a democratic white house in 2016, when will republicans ever do good? Will they ever do good? Is their brand just dead? Or are you being too confident? Whats the point of having a two party system if one party is always better than the other?

Note: According the 2012 election, a republican would have to win by 3 points nationally to win Nevada, assuming it swings with the nation, but it never does. According the 2008 election, a republican would have to win by 5 points nationally to win Nevada. Your in the right ballpark, but its way to unpredictable, not to mention Nevada is an elastic state.

[Non Swing Voter]

Nevada is already one of the least religious states (despite the Mormon presence) and the 6th most multicultural and seeing the fastest demographic change of probably any of the 50 states. I'm sure that Obama only did so (relatively) poorly there in 2012 because Nevada had by far the highest unemployment rate in the nation. Once the US economy in general - and the hardest hit states Nevada and Florida in particular - start to recover more profoundly from the mess - and there are already many signs of that, like property values increasing and stock markets soaring - I'm sure that both Nevada and Florida - but in particular Nevada - will take a heavy dive to the left. Democrats' potential is so much stronger in both of these two states.

I think the GOP vote also spiked a bit because of the Mormon presence.  The overall trend is horrible for Republicans there though.  I don't get why this is hard for our GOP friends to figure out.  If one part of the state is consistently voting 60-40 democratic, and that same part of the state is increasing as a share of the population then that state is going to trend democratic as well.  This really isn't hard.

Mormon presence is only in rural parts of the state and maybe a little bit in Clark County, besides that its really not religious. I understand what you're saying here, Clark County is 72% of the population and its the most democratic part of the state (going 56% for Obama, if I remember), and the population % is increasing, so that equals a democratic trend, however Clark County could vote more republican, thus trending republican. I think you assume too much that growth = more democratic vote, but that's not always the case and shouldn't be assumed as such. By the way, how much of a landslide do you think the republicans would have to get to win Nevada?

Your last point about growth =/= democratic vote per se is valid, but in this case growth DOES = more democratic vote because the growth is almost entirely from Hispanics and west coast transplants.  So it would take a political realignment for that growth to not be among democrats.

I honestly think Republicans would have to win the national popular vote by a 5 point margin to win Nevada and even then it would be really tight.  I also don't think Republicans will win the national popular vote for a while because the economy was pretty unfavorable to Obama when he ran for re-election and most of the country thought the country was on the wrong track and he still won by a fairly substantial margin by winning over his base groups (minorities + educated whites + other urban voters).  The Obama coalition is increasing as a share of the overall population and it's increasing in a bunch of swing states...

I therefore think there is a 90% chance Democrats win the White House in 2016 and a 95% chance they win Nevada in 2016.

OK, the thing here is that your assuming all the positive democratic trends right now will always continue into the future and therefore democrats will always do good. It's a nice formula, and its comfortable and easy to assume, but what most democrats don't realize is that whites are moving in a republican direction, which seems unlikely to most democrats, but Hispanic voters are moving left, and that's extra emphasized and obvious. We assume that the current numbers right now will just stay the same or get better for democrats, and because population of those numbers and statistics are increasing, it can only mean better for democrats.

I usually try to be non-partisan and fair to both sides when it comes to election trends, but this has got me pessimistic lately. If your so confident about a democratic white house in 2016, when will republicans ever do good? Will they ever do good? Is their brand just dead? Or are you being too confident? Whats the point of having a two party system if one party is always better than the other?

Note: According the 2012 election, a republican would have to win by 3 points nationally to win Nevada, assuming it swings with the nation, but it never does. According the 2008 election, a republican would have to win by 5 points nationally to win Nevada. Your in the right ballpark, but its way to unpredictable, not to mention Nevada is an elastic state.

So you take issue with the fact that I assume certain trend lines but then you assume whites will continue to trend Republican... OK...

I disagree with the notion that Republicans will just continue doing better and better among whites as some kind of reaction to minorities voting Democrat.  What you guys fail to realize is that whites who vote Democrat are the most liberal and loyal part of the coalition.  Republicans don't even do that well among whites outside of the South.  Furthermore, there is a base of white voters that I do not think will vote Republican anytime soon regardless of trends... If you factor in Jewish voters, Gay voters, Atheists, Feminists, and Liberal whites, you probably get about 1/3 of the white population right there.  These people aren't going to start voting Republican.  Additionally, white voters are actually more liberal on certain issues than the general population... for instance, gay marriage.

Yes, I do think the Republican brand in its current form is dead... absolutely.  They cannot run on disenfranchising minority voters, not allowing gay marriage, and talking about legitimate rape and remain a viable party.  That formula saw its last breaths in 2000/2004 when Bush won and he barely won...

There is a reason why democrats have won the popular vote 5/6 times in the last 6 elections.

So think about what you just said... a Republican would have to win the popular vote by 3-5 points nationally to win Nevada (assuming the state doesn't trend at all)... now think about the fact that Republicans have only won the popular vote once in the last 6 elections and that was an incumbent who won by less than a 3 point margin...

[ElectionsGuy]

Nevada is already one of the least religious states (despite the Mormon presence) and the 6th most multicultural and seeing the fastest demographic change of probably any of the 50 states. I'm sure that Obama only did so (relatively) poorly there in 2012 because Nevada had by far the highest unemployment rate in the nation. Once the US economy in general - and the hardest hit states Nevada and Florida in particular - start to recover more profoundly from the mess - and there are already many signs of that, like property values increasing and stock markets soaring - I'm sure that both Nevada and Florida - but in particular Nevada - will take a heavy dive to the left. Democrats' potential is so much stronger in both of these two states.

I think the GOP vote also spiked a bit because of the Mormon presence.  The overall trend is horrible for Republicans there though.  I don't get why this is hard for our GOP friends to figure out.  If one part of the state is consistently voting 60-40 democratic, and that same part of the state is increasing as a share of the population then that state is going to trend democratic as well.  This really isn't hard.

Mormon presence is only in rural parts of the state and maybe a little bit in Clark County, besides that its really not religious. I understand what you're saying here, Clark County is 72% of the population and its the most democratic part of the state (going 56% for Obama, if I remember), and the population % is increasing, so that equals a democratic trend, however Clark County could vote more republican, thus trending republican. I think you assume too much that growth = more democratic vote, but that's not always the case and shouldn't be assumed as such. By the way, how much of a landslide do you think the republicans would have to get to win Nevada?

Your last point about growth =/= democratic vote per se is valid, but in this case growth DOES = more democratic vote because the growth is almost entirely from Hispanics and west coast transplants.  So it would take a political realignment for that growth to not be among democrats.

I honestly think Republicans would have to win the national popular vote by a 5 point margin to win Nevada and even then it would be really tight.  I also don't think Republicans will win the national popular vote for a while because the economy was pretty unfavorable to Obama when he ran for re-election and most of the country thought the country was on the wrong track and he still won by a fairly substantial margin by winning over his base groups (minorities + educated whites + other urban voters).  The Obama coalition is increasing as a share of the overall population and it's increasing in a bunch of swing states...

I therefore think there is a 90% chance Democrats win the White House in 2016 and a 95% chance they win Nevada in 2016.

OK, the thing here is that your assuming all the positive democratic trends right now will always continue into the future and therefore democrats will always do good. It's a nice formula, and its comfortable and easy to assume, but what most democrats don't realize is that whites are moving in a republican direction, which seems unlikely to most democrats, but Hispanic voters are moving left, and that's extra emphasized and obvious. We assume that the current numbers right now will just stay the same or get better for democrats, and because population of those numbers and statistics are increasing, it can only mean better for democrats.

I usually try to be non-partisan and fair to both sides when it comes to election trends, but this has got me pessimistic lately. If your so confident about a democratic white house in 2016, when will republicans ever do good? Will they ever do good? Is their brand just dead? Or are you being too confident? Whats the point of having a two party system if one party is always better than the other?

Note: According the 2012 election, a republican would have to win by 3 points nationally to win Nevada, assuming it swings with the nation, but it never does. According the 2008 election, a republican would have to win by 5 points nationally to win Nevada. Your in the right ballpark, but its way to unpredictable, not to mention Nevada is an elastic state.

So you take issue with the fact that I assume certain trend lines but then you assume whites will continue to trend Republican... OK...

I disagree with the notion that Republicans will just continue doing better and better among whites as some kind of reaction to minorities voting Democrat.  What you guys fail to realize is that whites who vote Democrat are the most liberal and loyal part of the coalition.  Republicans don't even do that well among whites outside of the South.  Furthermore, there is a base of white voters that I do not think will vote Republican anytime soon regardless of trends... If you factor in Jewish voters, Gay voters, Atheists, Feminists, and Liberal whites, you probably get about 1/3 of the white population right there.  These people aren't going to start voting Republican.  Additionally, white voters are actually more liberal on certain issues than the general population... for instance, gay marriage.

Yes, I do think the Republican brand in its current form is dead... absolutely.  They cannot run on disenfranchising minority voters, not allowing gay marriage, and talking about legitimate rape and remain a viable party.  That formula saw its last breaths in 2000/2004 when Bush won and he barely won...

There is a reason why democrats have won the popular vote 5/6 times in the last 6 elections.

So think about what you just said... a Republican would have to win the popular vote by 3-5 points nationally to win Nevada (assuming the state doesn't trend at all)... now think about the fact that Republicans have only won the popular vote once in the last 6 elections and that was an incumbent who won by less than a 3 point margin...

First of all, I never assumed whites would trend more republican, I simply stated that they have trended more republican over the years. I would be biased if I assumed that. Second, why is is that blacks, Hispanic, minorities, etc. can get more democratic, but whites can't get more republican simply because the democratic whites are more "loyal" and "liberal". Hispanic and Black republicans aren't loyal and conservative to their party? With your set of stats, can anything get more republican?

Now, taking this from a clear and non-biased way, I can only assume your being way too overconfident about democratic potential in the future. From 1968-1988. The republican won the popular vote 5/6 times, and this period was even more republican dominated than this democratic period now. They thought they had a "lock" on the electoral college with the South and the Rocky West. They also thought republicans would dominate the presidency for years and years. Same situation here, except this time its the democrats turn, and they are over confident and cocky about the future just like republicans were in the 80's. The republicans thought trends would never come back to the democrats, and look, they did. You can show the facts all you want, its the same situation reversed, this is just history repeating itself in a nutshell. Enjoy this time of democratic dominance.

[barfbag]

Nevada is already one of the least religious states (despite the Mormon presence) and the 6th most multicultural and seeing the fastest demographic change of probably any of the 50 states. I'm sure that Obama only did so (relatively) poorly there in 2012 because Nevada had by far the highest unemployment rate in the nation. Once the US economy in general - and the hardest hit states Nevada and Florida in particular - start to recover more profoundly from the mess - and there are already many signs of that, like property values increasing and stock markets soaring - I'm sure that both Nevada and Florida - but in particular Nevada - will take a heavy dive to the left. Democrats' potential is so much stronger in both of these two states.

I think the GOP vote also spiked a bit because of the Mormon presence.  The overall trend is horrible for Republicans there though.  I don't get why this is hard for our GOP friends to figure out.  If one part of the state is consistently voting 60-40 democratic, and that same part of the state is increasing as a share of the population then that state is going to trend democratic as well.  This really isn't hard.

Mormon presence is only in rural parts of the state and maybe a little bit in Clark County, besides that its really not religious. I understand what you're saying here, Clark County is 72% of the population and its the most democratic part of the state (going 56% for Obama, if I remember), and the population % is increasing, so that equals a democratic trend, however Clark County could vote more republican, thus trending republican. I think you assume too much that growth = more democratic vote, but that's not always the case and shouldn't be assumed as such. By the way, how much of a landslide do you think the republicans would have to get to win Nevada?

Your last point about growth =/= democratic vote per se is valid, but in this case growth DOES = more democratic vote because the growth is almost entirely from Hispanics and west coast transplants.  So it would take a political realignment for that growth to not be among democrats.

I honestly think Republicans would have to win the national popular vote by a 5 point margin to win Nevada and even then it would be really tight.  I also don't think Republicans will win the national popular vote for a while because the economy was pretty unfavorable to Obama when he ran for re-election and most of the country thought the country was on the wrong track and he still won by a fairly substantial margin by winning over his base groups (minorities + educated whites + other urban voters).  The Obama coalition is increasing as a share of the overall population and it's increasing in a bunch of swing states...

I therefore think there is a 90% chance Democrats win the White House in 2016 and a 95% chance they win Nevada in 2016.

OK, the thing here is that your assuming all the positive democratic trends right now will always continue into the future and therefore democrats will always do good. It's a nice formula, and its comfortable and easy to assume, but what most democrats don't realize is that whites are moving in a republican direction, which seems unlikely to most democrats, but Hispanic voters are moving left, and that's extra emphasized and obvious. We assume that the current numbers right now will just stay the same or get better for democrats, and because population of those numbers and statistics are increasing, it can only mean better for democrats.

I usually try to be non-partisan and fair to both sides when it comes to election trends, but this has got me pessimistic lately. If your so confident about a democratic white house in 2016, when will republicans ever do good? Will they ever do good? Is their brand just dead? Or are you being too confident? Whats the point of having a two party system if one party is always better than the other?

Note: According the 2012 election, a republican would have to win by 3 points nationally to win Nevada, assuming it swings with the nation, but it never does. According the 2008 election, a republican would have to win by 5 points nationally to win Nevada. Your in the right ballpark, but its way to unpredictable, not to mention Nevada is an elastic state.

So you take issue with the fact that I assume certain trend lines but then you assume whites will continue to trend Republican... OK...

I disagree with the notion that Republicans will just continue doing better and better among whites as some kind of reaction to minorities voting Democrat.  What you guys fail to realize is that whites who vote Democrat are the most liberal and loyal part of the coalition.  Republicans don't even do that well among whites outside of the South.  Furthermore, there is a base of white voters that I do not think will vote Republican anytime soon regardless of trends... If you factor in Jewish voters, Gay voters, Atheists, Feminists, and Liberal whites, you probably get about 1/3 of the white population right there.  These people aren't going to start voting Republican.  Additionally, white voters are actually more liberal on certain issues than the general population... for instance, gay marriage.

Yes, I do think the Republican brand in its current form is dead... absolutely.  They cannot run on disenfranchising minority voters, not allowing gay marriage, and talking about legitimate rape and remain a viable party.  That formula saw its last breaths in 2000/2004 when Bush won and he barely won...

There is a reason why democrats have won the popular vote 5/6 times in the last 6 elections.

So think about what you just said... a Republican would have to win the popular vote by 3-5 points nationally to win Nevada (assuming the state doesn't trend at all)... now think about the fact that Republicans have only won the popular vote once in the last 6 elections and that was an incumbent who won by less than a 3 point margin...

First of all, I never assumed whites would trend more republican, I simply stated that they have trended more republican over the years. I would be biased if I assumed that. Second, why is is that blacks, Hispanic, minorities, etc. can get more democratic, but whites can't get more republican simply because the democratic whites are more "loyal" and "liberal". Hispanic and Black republicans aren't loyal and conservative to their party? With your set of stats, can anything get more republican?

Now, taking this from a clear and non-biased way, I can only assume your being way too overconfident about democratic potential in the future. From 1968-1988. The republican won the popular vote 5/6 times, and this period was even more republican dominated than this democratic period now. They thought they had a "lock" on the electoral college with the South and the Rocky West. They also thought republicans would dominate the presidency for years and years. Same situation here, except this time its the democrats turn, and they are over confident and cocky about the future just like republicans were in the 80's. The republicans thought trends would never come back to the democrats, and look, they did. You can show the facts all you want, its the same situation reversed, this is just history repeating itself in a nutshell. Enjoy this time of democratic dominance.

Very true and it can be said even simple enough for Democrats to understand by looking at the last century. Presidents are almost always re-elected. It goes 8 years of one party and then 8 years of the other party in the White House. Only extreme anomalies such as twelve consecutive years of one party, the Iran Contra scandal, the great depression, and a four candidate race have prevented presidents from getting re-elected. If Democrats knew their history as well as they knew pointless statistics, then perhaps they wouldn't be so over confident. It's only wishful liberal thinking. Hell the Democrats don't even know their history back to the 1980's because if they did they'd see more of their own pointless numbers and how quickly things can change.

[barfbag]

Nevada is already one of the least religious states (despite the Mormon presence) and the 6th most multicultural and seeing the fastest demographic change of probably any of the 50 states. I'm sure that Obama only did so (relatively) poorly there in 2012 because Nevada had by far the highest unemployment rate in the nation. Once the US economy in general - and the hardest hit states Nevada and Florida in particular - start to recover more profoundly from the mess - and there are already many signs of that, like property values increasing and stock markets soaring - I'm sure that both Nevada and Florida - but in particular Nevada - will take a heavy dive to the left. Democrats' potential is so much stronger in both of these two states.

I think the GOP vote also spiked a bit because of the Mormon presence.  The overall trend is horrible for Republicans there though.  I don't get why this is hard for our GOP friends to figure out.  If one part of the state is consistently voting 60-40 democratic, and that same part of the state is increasing as a share of the population then that state is going to trend democratic as well.  This really isn't hard.

Mormon presence is only in rural parts of the state and maybe a little bit in Clark County, besides that its really not religious. I understand what you're saying here, Clark County is 72% of the population and its the most democratic part of the state (going 56% for Obama, if I remember), and the population % is increasing, so that equals a democratic trend, however Clark County could vote more republican, thus trending republican. I think you assume too much that growth = more democratic vote, but that's not always the case and shouldn't be assumed as such. By the way, how much of a landslide do you think the republicans would have to get to win Nevada?

Your last point about growth =/= democratic vote per se is valid, but in this case growth DOES = more democratic vote because the growth is almost entirely from Hispanics and west coast transplants.  So it would take a political realignment for that growth to not be among democrats.

I honestly think Republicans would have to win the national popular vote by a 5 point margin to win Nevada and even then it would be really tight.  I also don't think Republicans will win the national popular vote for a while because the economy was pretty unfavorable to Obama when he ran for re-election and most of the country thought the country was on the wrong track and he still won by a fairly substantial margin by winning over his base groups (minorities + educated whites + other urban voters).  The Obama coalition is increasing as a share of the overall population and it's increasing in a bunch of swing states...

I therefore think there is a 90% chance Democrats win the White House in 2016 and a 95% chance they win Nevada in 2016.

OK, the thing here is that your assuming all the positive democratic trends right now will always continue into the future and therefore democrats will always do good. It's a nice formula, and its comfortable and easy to assume, but what most democrats don't realize is that whites are moving in a republican direction, which seems unlikely to most democrats, but Hispanic voters are moving left, and that's extra emphasized and obvious. We assume that the current numbers right now will just stay the same or get better for democrats, and because population of those numbers and statistics are increasing, it can only mean better for democrats.

I usually try to be non-partisan and fair to both sides when it comes to election trends, but this has got me pessimistic lately. If your so confident about a democratic white house in 2016, when will republicans ever do good? Will they ever do good? Is their brand just dead? Or are you being too confident? Whats the point of having a two party system if one party is always better than the other?

Note: According the 2012 election, a republican would have to win by 3 points nationally to win Nevada, assuming it swings with the nation, but it never does. According the 2008 election, a republican would have to win by 5 points nationally to win Nevada. Your in the right ballpark, but its way to unpredictable, not to mention Nevada is an elastic state.

So you take issue with the fact that I assume certain trend lines but then you assume whites will continue to trend Republican... OK...

I disagree with the notion that Republicans will just continue doing better and better among whites as some kind of reaction to minorities voting Democrat.  What you guys fail to realize is that whites who vote Democrat are the most liberal and loyal part of the coalition.  Republicans don't even do that well among whites outside of the South.  Furthermore, there is a base of white voters that I do not think will vote Republican anytime soon regardless of trends... If you factor in Jewish voters, Gay voters, Atheists, Feminists, and Liberal whites, you probably get about 1/3 of the white population right there.  These people aren't going to start voting Republican.  Additionally, white voters are actually more liberal on certain issues than the general population... for instance, gay marriage.

Yes, I do think the Republican brand in its current form is dead... absolutely.  They cannot run on disenfranchising minority voters, not allowing gay marriage, and talking about legitimate rape and remain a viable party.  That formula saw its last breaths in 2000/2004 when Bush won and he barely won...

There is a reason why democrats have won the popular vote 5/6 times in the last 6 elections.

So think about what you just said... a Republican would have to win the popular vote by 3-5 points nationally to win Nevada (assuming the state doesn't trend at all)... now think about the fact that Republicans have only won the popular vote once in the last 6 elections and that was an incumbent who won by less than a 3 point margin...

First of all, I never assumed whites would trend more republican, I simply stated that they have trended more republican over the years. I would be biased if I assumed that. Second, why is is that blacks, Hispanic, minorities, etc. can get more democratic, but whites can't get more republican simply because the democratic whites are more "loyal" and "liberal". Hispanic and Black republicans aren't loyal and conservative to their party? With your set of stats, can anything get more republican?

Now, taking this from a clear and non-biased way, I can only assume your being way too overconfident about democratic potential in the future. From 1968-1988. The republican won the popular vote 5/6 times, and this period was even more republican dominated than this democratic period now. They thought they had a "lock" on the electoral college with the South and the Rocky West. They also thought republicans would dominate the presidency for years and years. Same situation here, except this time its the democrats turn, and they are over confident and cocky about the future just like republicans were in the 80's. The republicans thought trends would never come back to the democrats, and look, they did. You can show the facts all you want, its the same situation reversed, this is just history repeating itself in a nutshell. Enjoy this time of democratic dominance.

Very true and it can be said even simple enough for Democrats to understand by looking at the last century. Presidents are almost always re-elected. It goes 8 years of one party and then 8 years of the other party in the White House. Only extreme anomalies such as twelve consecutive years of one party, the Iran Contra scandal, the great depression, and a four candidate race have prevented presidents from getting re-elected. If Democrats knew their history as well as they knew pointless statistics, then perhaps they wouldn't be so over confident. It's only wishful liberal thinking. Hell the Democrats don't even know their history back to the 1980's because if they did they'd see more of their own pointless numbers and how quickly things can change.

[opebo]

First of all, I never assumed whites would trend more republican, I simply stated that they have trended more republican over the years. I would be biased if I assumed that. Second, why is is that blacks, Hispanic, minorities, etc. can get more democratic, but whites can't get more republican simply because the democratic whites are more "loyal" and "liberal". Hispanic and Black republicans aren't loyal and conservative to their party? With your set of stats, can anything get more republican?

The main point is that the Dem ethnics are increasing in number and share of the electorate, not increasing in Democratic-ness.  Even if the Whites were to become somewhat more right-wing, racist, whatever, the main point is that they are dying off and not being replaced and thus are a markedly shrinking share of the electorate - thus the GOP would need a quite large and rapid increase in the percentage they get of this race in order to win.[/quote]

This go-for-65+%-of-the-whites or take-the-Southern-racist-strategy-nationwide isn't really a great strategy, though there is hope for the bad party if they can swing it in certain states which are more amenable to it:  the famous ones being PA, OH, WS, MI.  Still, the chance is very very slim I would say.

[Miles]

I'm in between options 1 and 2.

Even Karl Rove had Romney losing NV in his very R-favorable predictions.

[Vosem]

I'm not sure which direction it's trending; it moved fairly rapidly R in 2012, although demographics-wise (and it was doing this for most of the 2000s numbers-wise, too) it seems to be moving D. Right now, it's a leans-D state; Republicans don't need a blowout to win it, as a solid victory by a Western candidate would probably be sufficient. The state reelected a Republican Senator in 2012; it's obviously not gone.

As for Hispanics, while they are increasing as a percentage of the population it seems doubtful that Democrats will be able to duplicate their 2012 landslide among Hispanics. Republicans have generally done much better throughout the 2000s than they did in 2012 (Bush got 44% of them in 2004), and they are still pretty regularly getting into the high 30s in Western states at the statewide level as I understand it. Romney made zero effort to appeal to Hispanics whatsoever; that mistake won't be repeated. So while opebo is right in the long term (Republicans won't be winning Hispanics outright anytime soon, and they are increasing as a share of the population), in the short run he's not, since it seems clear that if the Republicans nominate a semi-competent candidate in 2016 they will 'bounce back' and give Republicans a greater percentage of the vote than they did in 2012. So, for 2016 if the candidate's not Santorum or something insane like that they should be fine.