Nevada: Long Gone?

[barfbag]

Yeah, Nevada is gone for the Republicans. They are tied with Minnesota for the worst state party organization, while the Democrats have a machine to get out their voters. Also the demographic trends aren't good for the Republicans either.

The trends are troubling but we need to see how the GOP can do with Hispanics after the Democrats no longer have a minority candidate. Republicans are very likely to win the next two elections too. Let's see how it differs from the popular vote.

[barfbag]

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.

[barfbag]

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.

[barfbag]

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.

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.

That depends a bit on Latino turnout vs white turnout, though, doesn't it?

Guys, even in the unlikely event the GOP makes small inroads in the Hispanic vote, or that Hispanic turnout declines slightly compared to White turnout (or in other words relative to 2012 turnout), these changes will almost certainly be made up for by the increase in their overall percentage of the electorate.

In other words, because of demographic change in Nevada (and following along a bit later in the process in Colorado), the GOP needs to make really large inroads into the Hispanic vote, or suppress their participation to a heretofore unseen degree.  Again, these are not very likely events because they are both large and contrary to trend.

Latino growth is a big problem in Nevada. As you said even if they turn out in smaller numbers, the smaller number will make up an even higher portion of the electorate.

[barfbag]

Short term it 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.

Agreed unless we figure out a way to become a bigger tent party.

[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.

[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.

[barfbag]

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.

They'll be fine, sure, but they're not winning โucking Nevada, Big V.

Why do you feel Nevada's trend will continue in the same manner it's been going and why do you feel it's out of reach? It's not Vermont, or even California.

[barfbag]

Why do you feel Nevada's trend will continue in the same manner it's been going and why do you feel it's out of reach? It's not Vermont, or even California.

Demographics, bb.

So trending demographics make it out of reach for Republicans?

[barfbag]

Why do you feel Nevada's trend will continue in the same manner it's been going and why do you feel it's out of reach? It's not Vermont, or even California.

Demographics, bb.

History shows the parties take turns in the White House. I don't think Nevada is out of reach if it's what you're thinking.

So trending demographics make it out of reach for Republicans?

umm... yes...?

If a group of voters consistently votes for one party (and is even aligning further with that party) and that group is increasing as a share of the overall vote, then the state itself will favor that party unless there is a countervailing force... which there really isn't... rural counties are going further to the right but they are sparsely populated.  This is basically the exact same situation as Virginia and Colorado.  Maryland is another state where this is happening, nobody really cares though because it was already out of reach for Republicans.

[barfbag]

Yeah, Nevada is gone for the Republicans. They are tied with Minnesota for the worst state party organization, while the Democrats have a machine to get out their voters. Also the demographic trends aren't good for the Republicans either.

Brian Sandoval hasn't done anything to seriously alienate independents and Democrats in the way that Scott Walker, Rick Scott, etc have done. And Dean Heller has wisely moved to the center since moving from his very conservative House district to the Senate. Yes, Sharron Angle was a fiasco, but it seems like they've learned their lesson.

And it's not like Nevada Democrats are anything to write home about. I've never cared for Harry Reid and then there's Shelley Berkley...

Maybe that's why Nevada feels the need to include "None of the Above" as an official choice on ballots.

I agree Nevada shouldn't be written off from the longer list of battleground states yet.

[barfbag]

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.

Why refer only to the last 100 years "century"?

Here is some history you claim to know and care about:

* 1856: Republicans first compete in a presidential election, with nominee John Fremont, but Democrat James Buchanan get elected the 15th president of the United States.[/li][/list]
* 1860: Abraham Lincoln becomes the first Republican party winner as he gets elected the 16th president of the United States. And with the Civil War, we also get our first realigning presidential elections pitting today's two major political parties against each other in part like sports teams.

Here's the rest:

1860: R (pickup)—realigning presidential election
1864: R (hold)
1868: R (hold)
1872: R (hold)
1876: R (hold)
1880: R (hold)
1884: D (pickup)
1888: R (pickup)
1892: D (pickup)

1896: R (pickup)—realigning presidential election
1900: R (hold)
1904: R (hold)
1908: R (hold)
1912: D (pickup)
1916: D (hold)
1920: R (pickup)
1924: R (hold)
1928: R (hold)

1932: D (pickup)—realigning presidential election
1936: D (hold)
1940: D (hold)
1944: D (hold)
1948: D (hold)
1952: R (pickup)
1956: R (hold)
1960: D (pickup)
1964: D (hold)

1968: R (pickup)—realigning presidential election
1972: R (hold)
1976: D (pickup)
1980: R (pickup)
1984: R (hold)
1988: R (hold)
1992: D (pickup)
1996: D (hold)
2000: R (pickup)
2004: R (hold)

2008: D (pickup)—realigning presidential election
2012: D (hold)
2016:
2020:
2024:
2028:
2032:
2036:
2040:
…

If only your work was a good comparison to the recent 8 year rule. What you're showing though is that recently it's pretty much gone back and forth. Presidents have to screw up really bad or a third party has to steal votes in order to get a president out. Also, no matter how popular an incumbent is, his party still loses the following election unless Michael Dukakis runs.