Where do the states fall?

[PolitiJunkie]

I just tried to rank the states and then divide them, so that the electoral votes have a ratio of 2:1:1:2.



Solid Republican - 175 EV
Lean Republican - 98 EV
Lean Democratic - 86 EV
Solid Democratic - 179 EV

Pennsylvania is the bubble state.

This could very well be the future of categories. It's exciting to wait and see.

This will not very well be the future of categories. By the time Pennsylvania and Ohio have become Lean R, North Carolina and Florida will be as Democratic as Virginia is now, and Georgia and Arizona will be toss-ups leaning D. All he was doing was trying to get a map where there was a 2:1:1:2 ratio.

Not a chance Florida moves left of center. It's pretty much the same center right state it's been for 50 years. It's light red when Republicans win and toss up when Democrats win. Arizona and Georgia are also the same as where they were 20 years ago. There are demographic changes which could shake things up but the other side of the argument is that Georgia has never been that far to the right and a one freaking point trend shouldn't be enough to make the left giddy. We've seen potential in Arizona for a long time and it's never happened. It's always "just a couple elections away." North Carolina should become a toss up before too long and Virginia will become purplish blue to light blue.

I love it...

Barfag's next post: "Florida has definitely not stayed the same over the past 50 years."

As much as I love to highlight barfbag's stupidity, he was actually just attempting to quote cope1989's post, but failed...

[Devils30]

Ohio is not a tossup if Virginia leans GOP. Obama won VA by more than OH in both 2008 and 2012.

[barfbag]

Ohio is not a tossup if Virginia leans GOP. Obama won VA by more than OH in both 2008 and 2012.

Things are shaping up that way.

[barfbag]

I just tried to rank the states and then divide them, so that the electoral votes have a ratio of 2:1:1:2.



Solid Republican - 175 EV
Lean Republican - 98 EV
Lean Democratic - 86 EV
Solid Democratic - 179 EV

Pennsylvania is the bubble state.

This could very well be the future of categories. It's exciting to wait and see.

This will not very well be the future of categories. By the time Pennsylvania and Ohio have become Lean R, North Carolina and Florida will be as Democratic as Virginia is now, and Georgia and Arizona will be toss-ups leaning D. All he was doing was trying to get a map where there was a 2:1:1:2 ratio.

Not a chance Florida moves left of center. It's pretty much the same center right state it's been for 50 years. It's light red when Republicans win and toss up when Democrats win. Arizona and Georgia are also the same as where they were 20 years ago. There are demographic changes which could shake things up but the other side of the argument is that Georgia has never been that far to the right and a one freaking point trend shouldn't be enough to make the left giddy. We've seen potential in Arizona for a long time and it's never happened. It's always "just a couple elections away." North Carolina should become a toss up before too long and Virginia will become purplish blue to light blue.

I love it...

Barfag's next post: "Florida has definitely not stayed the same over the past 50 years."

As much as I love to highlight barfbag's stupidity, he was actually just attempting to quote cope1989's post, but failed...

My stupidity?

[PolitiJunkie]

I just tried to rank the states and then divide them, so that the electoral votes have a ratio of 2:1:1:2.



Solid Republican - 175 EV
Lean Republican - 98 EV
Lean Democratic - 86 EV
Solid Democratic - 179 EV

Pennsylvania is the bubble state.

This could very well be the future of categories. It's exciting to wait and see.

This will not very well be the future of categories. By the time Pennsylvania and Ohio have become Lean R, North Carolina and Florida will be as Democratic as Virginia is now, and Georgia and Arizona will be toss-ups leaning D. All he was doing was trying to get a map where there was a 2:1:1:2 ratio.

Not a chance Florida moves left of center. It's pretty much the same center right state it's been for 50 years. It's light red when Republicans win and toss up when Democrats win. Arizona and Georgia are also the same as where they were 20 years ago. There are demographic changes which could shake things up but the other side of the argument is that Georgia has never been that far to the right and a one freaking point trend shouldn't be enough to make the left giddy. We've seen potential in Arizona for a long time and it's never happened. It's always "just a couple elections away." North Carolina should become a toss up before too long and Virginia will become purplish blue to light blue.

I love it...

Barfag's next post: "Florida has definitely not stayed the same over the past 50 years."

As much as I love to highlight barfbag's stupidity, he was actually just attempting to quote cope1989's post, but failed...

My stupidity?

Come on bro, I was defending you. Gotta cut your losses man.

[barfbag]

I just tried to rank the states and then divide them, so that the electoral votes have a ratio of 2:1:1:2.



Solid Republican - 175 EV
Lean Republican - 98 EV
Lean Democratic - 86 EV
Solid Democratic - 179 EV

Pennsylvania is the bubble state.

This could very well be the future of categories. It's exciting to wait and see.

This will not very well be the future of categories. By the time Pennsylvania and Ohio have become Lean R, North Carolina and Florida will be as Democratic as Virginia is now, and Georgia and Arizona will be toss-ups leaning D. All he was doing was trying to get a map where there was a 2:1:1:2 ratio.

Not a chance Florida moves left of center. It's pretty much the same center right state it's been for 50 years. It's light red when Republicans win and toss up when Democrats win. Arizona and Georgia are also the same as where they were 20 years ago. There are demographic changes which could shake things up but the other side of the argument is that Georgia has never been that far to the right and a one freaking point trend shouldn't be enough to make the left giddy. We've seen potential in Arizona for a long time and it's never happened. It's always "just a couple elections away." North Carolina should become a toss up before too long and Virginia will become purplish blue to light blue.

I love it...

Barfag's next post: "Florida has definitely not stayed the same over the past 50 years."

As much as I love to highlight barfbag's stupidity, he was actually just attempting to quote cope1989's post, but failed...

My stupidity?

Come on bro, I was defending you. Gotta cut your losses man.

Oh I'm sorry I misunderstood. But yes it depends on how someone defines same. All that's really the same is their slight tilt to the right for federal elections. Thanks for defending me.

[barfbag]

I can literally do very simple math to determine Florida's PVI in each election since 1964 (almost 50 years) to prove it has moved a lot

1964: -18
1968: -9 (just Nixon vs Humphrey)
1972: -21
1976: +3
1980: -7
1984: -12
1988: -15
1992: -7
1996: -3
2000: -0.5
2004: -3
2008: -4
2012: -3

Maybe it has remained stable since 2000 but dramatic shifts can happen here- like 72 to 76 or 88 to 92

It's pretty much stayed the same since 1996 and the elections of 72, 80, 84, and 88 were so one sided, I don't know how they could be indicative. Carter's victory in 1976 taints Florida too due to his southern base. This provides no useful information between 1968 and 1992, but we can see Florida still as light red in 1992. Actually, 1968 was tainted by Wallace's performance in Florida. Now we're back to 1964 when Goldwater's only successful region was the south so there we go again. This takes us back to 1960 when Florida was 3 points to the right of the nation. You know what, 1960 and 2012 both have Florida at 3 points right of center with no useful information between 1960 and 1992. Hurricane Andrew helped Bush in Florida in 1992 but we can use it for our information still. All in all, Florida has been anywhere from 2 to 7 points to the right in all useful elections since 1960.

[barfbag]

I can literally do very simple math to determine Florida's PVI in each election since 1964 (almost 50 years) to prove it has moved a lot

1964: -18
1968: -9 (just Nixon vs Humphrey)
1972: -21
1976: +3
1980: -7
1984: -12
1988: -15
1992: -7
1996: -3
2000: -0.5
2004: -3
2008: -4
2012: -3

Maybe it has remained stable since 2000 but dramatic shifts can happen here- like 72 to 76 or 88 to 92

It's pretty much stayed the same since 1996 and the elections of 72, 80, 84, and 88 were so one sided, I don't know how they could be indicative. Carter's victory in 1976 taints Florida too due to his southern base. This provides no useful information between 1968 and 1992, but we can see Florida still as light red in 1992. Actually, 1968 was tainted by Wallace's performance in Florida. Now we're back to 1964 when Goldwater's only successful region was the south so there we go again. This takes us back to 1960 when Florida was 3 points to the right of the nation. You know what, 1960 and 2012 both have Florida at 3 points right of center with no useful information between 1960 and 1992. Hurricane Andrew helped Bush in Florida in 1992 but we can use it for our information still. All in all, Florida has been anywhere from 2 to 7 points to the right in all useful elections since 1960.

And I raise you that like Georgia, Florida is pretty much staying the same. However, this thread is meant for discussing which categories states should be listed in. I have another thread for the Georgia trend myth.

[opebo]

Florida is pretty much staying the same.

The political balance has stayed the same, but the make up of each electorate is changing quite a lot.  The state has several major sources of potential instability - increasing minority/decreasing white electorate, immigration from other states, and finally the factor of the dying off of each successive generation of olds and their replacement by the next. 

I would argue that the status we observe in the statistics above in fact represents a masking of the rapid increase in the minority (D) electorate by the die off of a relatively Democratic generation of elders (the 'Greatest Generation') and their replacement by a relatively R generation of elders (the 'Silent Generation'). 

The next step is the continued growth and likely continued D-trend of the Hispanics and other minorities, coupled with a die off of the Silent Generation.  I think Florida will be the state to watch in 2016 and 2020, because a rapid shift due to these factors is quite possible, and obviously curtains for the Republicans if it were to happen.

[barfbag]

Florida is pretty much staying the same.

The political balance has stayed the same, but the make up of each electorate is changing quite a lot.  The state has several major sources of potential instability - increasing minority/decreasing white electorate, immigration from other states, and finally the factor of the dying off of each successive generation of olds and their replacement by the next. 

I would argue that the status we observe in the statistics above in fact represents a masking of the rapid increase in the minority (D) electorate by the die off of a relatively Democratic generation of elders (the 'Greatest Generation') and their replacement by a relatively R generation of elders (the 'Silent Generation'). 

The next step is the continued growth and likely continued D-trend of the Hispanics and other minorities, coupled with a die off of the Silent Generation.  I think Florida will be the state to watch in 2016 and 2020, because a rapid shift due to these factors is quite possible, and obviously curtains for the Republicans if it were to happen.

Yes I think it will be at least a decade if we see any shift in Florida. The state's demographics have been changing for 50 years though and will likely continue.

[kcguy]

I just tried to rank the states and then divide them, so that the electoral votes have a ratio of 2:1:1:2.



Solid Republican - 175 EV
Lean Republican - 98 EV
Lean Democratic - 86 EV
Solid Democratic - 179 EV

Pennsylvania is the bubble state.

How did you make that nifty non-Atlas map?  I'd like to make one.  Actually I'd just make the same thing except PA leans D.

I didn't try to use an Atlas map, because I haven't been around here long enough to figure out how anything works.

Somewhere over the years, I acquired a bitmap image of the 48 contiguous states--green boundaries on a black background.  I open the file with Paint and use the Fill command for the colors.

[barfbag]

Click on reply and then evc in the middle at the top of the reply page. It should take you to the map. Once you've filled in the states how you want them to be, click on show map link. Copy and paste after back spacing to the reply page.

[Devils30]

Looking at the 2012 exit polls, Obama did as well with young voters in Florida as he did anywhere, better than even the midwest.

[barfbag]

Looking at the 2012 exit polls, Obama did as well with young voters in Florida as he did anywhere, better than even the midwest.

Yes but how long will young voters vote Democrat? Will it be for their whole lives?

[DS0816]

Re: Where do the states fall?

RED: Republican (139)
LIGHT RED: Lean Republican (52)
YELLOW: Bellwether/Battleground/Competitive (84)
LIGHT BLUE: Lean Democratic (21)
BLUE: Democratic (242)

Those with "Leans" may become flipped by the opposing party's prevailing candidate if a national margin of victory were to be strong enough to pull in ones with such opposing tilt. In an election won the party with that tilt…the state will carry.

This map is partly assuming that both parties will continue their stupid "competitive" campaigns of only focusing on perceived "battlegrounds." Since after the 1980s, the most states won a given presidential election were the 32 carried with first election, in 1992, by Bill Clinton.

Note: On the prevailing side, since the 1990s, Republicans have averaged 9 electoral votes (for George W. Bush) with all states carried; Democrats have averaged 11 (Clinton) and 13 and 12 (Barack Obama) electoral votes with all states carried. On the losing side, Republicans averaged 9 (George Bush), 8 (Bob Dole and Mitt Romney), and 7 (John McCain) electoral votes with all states carried; Democrats averaged 13 electoral votes (Al Gore and John Kerry) with all states carried.

[barfbag]

Re: Where do the states fall?

RED: Republican (139)
LIGHT RED: Lean Republican (52)
YELLOW: Bellwether/Battleground/Competitive (84)
LIGHT BLUE: Lean Democratic (21)
BLUE: Democratic (242)

Those with "Leans" may become flipped by the opposing party's prevailing candidate if a national margin of victory were to be strong enough to pull in ones with such opposing tilt. In an election won the party with that tilt…the state will carry.

This map is partly assuming that both parties will continue their stupid "competitive" campaigns of only focusing on perceived "battlegrounds." Since after the 1980s, the most states won a given presidential election were the 32 carried with first election, in 1992, by Bill Clinton.

Note: On the prevailing side, since the 1990s, Republicans have averaged 9 electoral votes (for George W. Bush) with all states carried; Democrats have averaged 11 (Clinton) and 13 and 12 (Barack Obama) electoral votes with all states carried. On the losing side, Republicans averaged 9 (George Bush), 8 (Bob Dole and Mitt Romney), and 7 (John McCain) electoral votes with all states carried; Democrats averaged 13 electoral votes (Al Gore and John Kerry) with all states carried.

Oh I think Pennsylvania will surprise a lot of people in the next decade and move to the right. It might become the new Virginia as in where Virginia was before.

[opebo]

Florida is pretty much staying the same.

The political balance has stayed the same, but the make up of each electorate is changing quite a lot.  The state has several major sources of potential instability - increasing minority/decreasing white electorate, immigration from other states, and finally the factor of the dying off of each successive generation of olds and their replacement by the next. 

I would argue that the status we observe in the statistics above in fact represents a masking of the rapid increase in the minority (D) electorate by the die off of a relatively Democratic generation of elders (the 'Greatest Generation') and their replacement by a relatively R generation of elders (the 'Silent Generation'). 

The next step is the continued growth and likely continued D-trend of the Hispanics and other minorities, coupled with a die off of the Silent Generation.  I think Florida will be the state to watch in 2016 and 2020, because a rapid shift due to these factors is quite possible, and obviously curtains for the Republicans if it were to happen.

Yes I think it will be at least a decade if we see any shift in Florida. The state's demographics have been changing for 50 years though and will likely continue.

You didn't bother to comment upon my actual point, which is that there are two trends at work - an ever-increasing D-minority vote, with a fluctuating D/R/D elder vote, as each generation of retirees dies off and is replaced.  My point is simply that if we did have a rapid die off of D-leaning olds (Greatest Generation), and their replacement over the last decade by R-leaning olds (silent Generation), this has only kept the state even, as the underlying trend is Minority-D.  As soon as the generation of elders replacing the Silent generation's die-off swings D (if it does), the state could begin to move sharply and rapidly D.  I suppose some careful polling of the elderly would be in order to discover predictive signs of this hopeful thought.

[barfbag]

Florida is pretty much staying the same.

The political balance has stayed the same, but the make up of each electorate is changing quite a lot.  The state has several major sources of potential instability - increasing minority/decreasing white electorate, immigration from other states, and finally the factor of the dying off of each successive generation of olds and their replacement by the next. 

I would argue that the status we observe in the statistics above in fact represents a masking of the rapid increase in the minority (D) electorate by the die off of a relatively Democratic generation of elders (the 'Greatest Generation') and their replacement by a relatively R generation of elders (the 'Silent Generation'). 

The next step is the continued growth and likely continued D-trend of the Hispanics and other minorities, coupled with a die off of the Silent Generation.  I think Florida will be the state to watch in 2016 and 2020, because a rapid shift due to these factors is quite possible, and obviously curtains for the Republicans if it were to happen.

Yes I think it will be at least a decade if we see any shift in Florida. The state's demographics have been changing for 50 years though and will likely continue.

You didn't bother to comment upon my actual point, which is that there are two trends at work - an ever-increasing D-minority vote, with a fluctuating D/R/D elder vote, as each generation of retirees dies off and is replaced.  My point is simply that if we did have a rapid die off of D-leaning olds (Greatest Generation), and their replacement over the last decade by R-leaning olds (silent Generation), this has only kept the state even, as the underlying trend is Minority-D.  As soon as the generation of elders replacing the Silent generation's die-off swings D (if it does), the state could begin to move sharply and rapidly D.  I suppose some careful polling of the elderly would be in order to discover predictive signs of this hopeful thought.

I know what you're saying and it's true in theory, but young people move to Florida too after college or when starting their careers because of the state's comfortable climate appeal.

[DS0816]

Oh I think Pennsylvania will surprise a lot of people in the next decade and move to the right. It might become the new Virginia as in where Virginia was before.

The last Republican to carry Pennsylvania in a Democratic election-victory year dates back to 1948. Since after the 1940s, Pennsylvania has produced margins with Democratic tilts. Republican winners having carried the Keystone State—Dwight Eisenhower (1952, 1956), Richard Nixon (1972), Ronald Reagan (1980, 1984), and George Bush (1988)—all underperformed statewide-vs-nationwide. Losing Democrats Hubert Humphrey (1968), Al Gore (2000), and John Kerry (2004) had Pennsylvania in their column despite those Republican election-victory years. And, since after the 1940s, all prevailing Democrats—John Kennedy (1960), Lyndon Johnson (1964), Jimmy Carter (1976), Bill Ciinton (1992, 1996), and Barack Obama (2008, 2012)—carried Pennsylvania by larger margins compared to their national numbers.

Pennsylvania is a base state for the Democratic party. I know that the 44th president carried by less than 2 points above his national number with Election 2012. But that was also the case with the 42nd president with his re-election from 1996.

You have to make a connection, long term, with a host of states from a given column and another host of states from another given column and, yet, another host of states from yet another given column…. States which have, historically and electorally, carried the same for much of their existence. Pennsylvania is connected with Michigan. With Mich. the younger of the two, there are five presidential elections of record for which these two states carried differently. Three of those were cycles in which either Pa. or Mich. had a major-party nominee who didn't carry the other state. (Those were in 1848, 1856, and 1976.) And the other two were in line with having carried for Franklin Roosevelt in three of his four elections. (Roosevelt's Democratic party's base states were not in the north, as is the case now, but in the south. FDR failed to flip Pa. as he unseated Republican Herbert Hoover in 1932, and the Keystone State was one of six states to hold for Hoover, and Mich. flipped for losing GOP opponent Wendell Wilkie in 1940.)

States which have historically voted the same as the duo Pennsylvania/Michigan include New Englander Connecticut. (It has voted the same as Mich.—with no broken streak—since 1948. Obviously Pa. disagreed in 1976.) After that, you can have fun with so many others with a common connection. Like New Jersey. Like Maryland. Like Illinois. Like … .


Pennsylvania may become won over by a prevailing Republican presidential candidate only if that elected GOP performs nationally by a margin large enough to pull in a limited number of states which do not default, as the base, to Team Red. (For that happen, Pa. wouldn't be the only one in its group to cross the aisle, so to speak.) And this period's Republican party—with their base states in the south—hasn't won the U.S. Popular Vote more than once since after the 1980s. Add to this the fact the female vote hasn't nationally been carried by a GOP in any given election following the 1980s. In 1988, George Bush won nationally (R+7.73) over Michael Dukakis, and he was the last prevailing Republican to carry the state of Pennsylvania (by R+2.31).

[barfbag]

but the state is changing

[DS0816]

but the state is changing

I found this to be interesting where it addresses the gender-voting results in 2012 Pennsylvania:

@ http://www.sacbee.com/2012/11/06/4966431/2012-election-exit-poll-shows.html


Pull down the "Swing-state" tab to the Keystone State.

[barfbag]

Thanks I like it.

[PolitiJunkie]

but the state is changing

You're right, it is changing. The heavily Democratic urban areas and the Democratic-leaning suburbs that surround them are increasing in population, and the rural conservative areas are decreasing in population. Good insight barfbag, "but the state is changing" (I could almost hear you say this in the voice of a whining child telling his mom "but I wannnnnnt it") was a really thoughtful and intelligent response to DS0816's long and strong analysis.

[Nichlemn]

Re: Where do the states fall?

RED: Republican (139)
LIGHT RED: Lean Republican (52)
YELLOW: Bellwether/Battleground/Competitive (84)
LIGHT BLUE: Lean Democratic (21)
BLUE: Democratic (242)

Those with "Leans" may become flipped by the opposing party's prevailing candidate if a national margin of victory were to be strong enough to pull in ones with such opposing tilt. In an election won the party with that tilt…the state will carry.

This map is partly assuming that both parties will continue their stupid "competitive" campaigns of only focusing on perceived "battlegrounds." Since after the 1980s, the most states won a given presidential election were the 32 carried with first election, in 1992, by Bill Clinton.

Note: On the prevailing side, since the 1990s, Republicans have averaged 9 electoral votes (for George W. Bush) with all states carried; Democrats have averaged 11 (Clinton) and 13 and 12 (Barack Obama) electoral votes with all states carried. On the losing side, Republicans averaged 9 (George Bush), 8 (Bob Dole and Mitt Romney), and 7 (John McCain) electoral votes with all states carried; Democrats averaged 13 electoral votes (Al Gore and John Kerry) with all states carried.

lol @ your ridiculous emphasis on the binary outcomes of a few Presidential races. There's no other way to call PA "Democratic" but Indiana only "Leans Republican" when PA is consistently only point or two more Democratic than the national average but Indiana significantly more Republican, other than to cherrypick 1992 as a starting date and conclude the Democrats' strength since then represents somewhat more than noise.

[PolitiJunkie]

Re: Where do the states fall?

RED: Republican (139)
LIGHT RED: Lean Republican (52)
YELLOW: Bellwether/Battleground/Competitive (84)
LIGHT BLUE: Lean Democratic (21)
BLUE: Democratic (242)

Those with "Leans" may become flipped by the opposing party's prevailing candidate if a national margin of victory were to be strong enough to pull in ones with such opposing tilt. In an election won the party with that tilt…the state will carry.

This map is partly assuming that both parties will continue their stupid "competitive" campaigns of only focusing on perceived "battlegrounds." Since after the 1980s, the most states won a given presidential election were the 32 carried with first election, in 1992, by Bill Clinton.

Note: On the prevailing side, since the 1990s, Republicans have averaged 9 electoral votes (for George W. Bush) with all states carried; Democrats have averaged 11 (Clinton) and 13 and 12 (Barack Obama) electoral votes with all states carried. On the losing side, Republicans averaged 9 (George Bush), 8 (Bob Dole and Mitt Romney), and 7 (John McCain) electoral votes with all states carried; Democrats averaged 13 electoral votes (Al Gore and John Kerry) with all states carried.

lol @ your ridiculous emphasis on the binary outcomes of a few Presidential races. There's no other way to call PA "Democratic" but Indiana only "Leans Republican" when PA is consistently only point or two more Democratic than the national average but Indiana significantly more Republican, other than to cherrypick 1992 as a starting date and conclude the Democrats' strength since then represents somewhat more than noise.

Translation of Nichlemn's post:

Yeah well, even though Pennsylvania has been more consistently Democratic in the last several elections than Indiana has been consistently Republican, that shouldn't be reflected in the map because, well, you know...