Nevada: Long Gone?

[ElectionsGuy]

People have been talking about this so it deserves a poll and a thread, is Nevada Long Gone? I will choose option 4 because of the fact that it trended pretty R in the last election, so I have yet to classify it as a "Solid D State". Right now it's Lean D in my view, here are the trends in the past 3 elections when compared to the popular vote nationally:

2004: R+0.2%
2008: D+5.2%
2012: D+2.8%

Remember that Nevada depends heavily on Hispanic turnout, and this is a reason for Nevada's elasticity. How conservative or liberal the Hispanic vote is a great factor to determining Nevada's %. In my book Nevada is not long gone but kind of like Wisconsin, a state that still elects republicans but has a D advantage overall. According to 2012, in a 2012-esque election for republicans the state goes R by 1 point.

Where do you think Nevada is at now?

[ElectionsGuy]

What's missing here is the point - the demographic percentages just get worse and worse for the GOP with each passing election:  you can't really say that the Dems 'maxed out' the Latino vote in 2012 - because there will be more Latinos and fewer whites by 2016.

I meant percentage wise. 70% will be a challenge to exceed.

It was actually said by a Hispanic reporter at MSNBC at election night that the Obama ticket received 90% Latino support in Nevada and Colorado. If that's true, that quite overwhelming. And perhaps a sign that even 70% or 75% isn't necessarily the absolute ceiling nationwide? Certainly the Hispanic percentage who vote Democratic can increase quite a lot in states like Florida, Texas and New Mexico.

You actually trust MSNBC with your info? I wouldn't trust any TV news media as they will distort facts easily for a liberal/conservative bias.

[ElectionsGuy]

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.

Sure, but remember that Obama won by about 4% nationwide. If it trends republican again and if the republican wins by a 2012 Obama-like margin it could easily vote for a republican. But those are two big ifs. That's also assuming it swings with the nation, which it probably will with its flexibility. Would you consider 2012 a blowout? If you do then option 1 would probably fit Nevada. Otherwise it's not necessarily gone yet. 

[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?

[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".

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

Actually... you did assume whites are trending more republican... your own words:

"but what most democrats don't realize is that whites are moving in a republican direction"

You are beyond reasoning with so I won't respond past that clearly erroneous point you made.  Enjoy watching the next several Presidential election results, and I hope someone bumps this Nevada thread in 2016.

Yes, they are trending in a republican direction, but I never meant to say they would continue to into the future. Perhaps I should've said they've moved in a republican direction, is that better?

Also, I don't see how you can call that statement erroneous, I'll break it down if you don't believe it.

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

I'm not saying they're going to go further but there is an obvious trend here, and you'd be blind not to see it. There is also a democratic trend with Hispanic voters since the Bush years, and I'm able to accept that. I'm not trying to be rude or anything here, I'm just trying to prove a simple point. I want us to get along better, and hopefully we can do that.