Post the best maps for both parties

[barfbag]

The reason I listed 44% as a minimum is because I don't see either party doing worse than that.

[PolitiJunkie]

I think some combination of barfbag's and Waukesha County's maps is perfect.

[Skill and Chance]

For an idea of an absolute ceiling for each party using a uniform swing from 2012:

Here is a 60/37 Obama win

And this is a 60/37 Romney win

The current electoral college configuration advantages Democrats in close races (and the advantage only gets more dramatic if Southern African-American turnout falls off without Obama on the ballot), but this also means that it is much, much easier for a Republican to run the table in a landslide.  Now uniform swing isn't always an accurate representation of how states actually vote.  I doubt that MA and CA would actually flip even in a huge R landslide, and a D win in MS seems similarly farfetched.  But it is pretty clear, at least in recent elections that there are about 3X as many states that will never vote D than there are states that will never vote R.   

Of course a 60/37 election hasn't happened since 1972 and there are structural reasons that it may not be possible in the current era.  A massive win didn't happen in 1996 or 2008 when historically it probably should have.  If we scale things back to a 55/42 win, this is what we get:

Democratic Win

Of note is that NE-02, rather than AZ or GA is the next thing to flip for the Dems after NC.  If we scale it down to even a 54% Dem win in the PV, the only pickup over Obama 2012 is NC.  So overall, not a whole lot changes in a large D win vs. a close D win. A lot of safe states cross the 60% line, but that's about it.

Republican Win

IL/CA/NY/MA are all comfortable D holds, but there is still a lot more Republican upside on this map than most people here want to acknowledge. 

[barfbag]

I love making maps.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I love making maps.

[Devils30]

Those maps do a good job of showing how many votes the GOP wasted in rural areas in non-competitive states. The stereotype was always that the Dems do in NY, CA, IL but recent years have hurt the GOP more in the electoral college.

[barfbag]

Those maps do a good job of showing how many votes the GOP wasted in rural areas in non-competitive states. The stereotype was always that the Dems do in NY, CA, IL but recent years have hurt the GOP more in the electoral college.

How so?

[Skill and Chance]

Those maps do a good job of showing how many votes the GOP wasted in rural areas in non-competitive states. The stereotype was always that the Dems do in NY, CA, IL but recent years have hurt the GOP more in the electoral college.

How so?

The GOP has like 15 states where they are assured 60% of the vote in a toss up election, and probably a couple more that could give them 60% without Obama on the ticket .  Even though all of these states, other than Texas are small, collectively they make up more of the country than CA and NY combined (IL is quite D, but it isn't a 6X/3X level of D).  Look at how many states the Dems still lose in a hypothetical 60/37 national romp.  Those are wasted GOP votes that have no effect on the electoral college.

On the other hand, this would seem to give the GOP a structural senate majority, which hasn't really manifested itself yet.  This is probably because conservatives in competitive or even lean R states are looking to the winners in the 60% GOP states when deciding who to nominate.     

[barfbag]

Those maps do a good job of showing how many votes the GOP wasted in rural areas in non-competitive states. The stereotype was always that the Dems do in NY, CA, IL but recent years have hurt the GOP more in the electoral college.

How so?

The GOP has like 15 states where they are assured 60% of the vote in a toss up election, and probably a couple more that could give them 60% without Obama on the ticket .  Even though all of these states, other than Texas are small, collectively they make up more of the country than CA and NY combined (IL is quite D, but it isn't a 6X/3X level of D).  Look at how many states the Dems still lose in a hypothetical 60/37 national romp.  Those are wasted GOP votes that have no effect on the electoral college.

On the other hand, this would seem to give the GOP a structural senate majority, which hasn't really manifested itself yet.  This is probably because conservatives in competitive or even lean R states are looking to the winners in the 60% GOP states when deciding who to nominate.     

True, but the GOP doesn't waste time or money on those states. As for your last paragraph do you mean Republicans are picking far right candidates to win in states that are only purplish red and that's why they can't get a majority in the senate still?

[Skill and Chance]

Those maps do a good job of showing how many votes the GOP wasted in rural areas in non-competitive states. The stereotype was always that the Dems do in NY, CA, IL but recent years have hurt the GOP more in the electoral college.

How so?

The GOP has like 15 states where they are assured 60% of the vote in a toss up election, and probably a couple more that could give them 60% without Obama on the ticket .  Even though all of these states, other than Texas are small, collectively they make up more of the country than CA and NY combined (IL is quite D, but it isn't a 6X/3X level of D).  Look at how many states the Dems still lose in a hypothetical 60/37 national romp.  Those are wasted GOP votes that have no effect on the electoral college.

On the other hand, this would seem to give the GOP a structural senate majority, which hasn't really manifested itself yet.  This is probably because conservatives in competitive or even lean R states are looking to the winners in the 60% GOP states when deciding who to nominate.     

True, but the GOP doesn't waste time or money on those states. As for your last paragraph do you mean Republicans are picking far right candidates to win in states that are only purplish red and that's why they can't get a majority in the senate still?

Well, the issue is that Dems don't have to spend time or money on their 55/45 states even though they waste fewer votes there- WA, ME, OR, MI etc.  Obama even got away with ignoring PA and MN.  If UT were only as partisan as GA, Republicans still wouldn't need to spend there in a 50/50 cycle.
 
As for the last point, I am saying that having complete one party rule in a lot of states increases the risk of nominating candidates that more moderate electorates will see as weird and/or radical.  The GOP keeps dropping the ball in states that lean conservative but aren't ironclad conservative.  They can't even compete in D-leaning states without running moderates, but they don't formally need any D-leaning states for a majority. 

[barfbag]

Those maps do a good job of showing how many votes the GOP wasted in rural areas in non-competitive states. The stereotype was always that the Dems do in NY, CA, IL but recent years have hurt the GOP more in the electoral college.

How so?

The GOP has like 15 states where they are assured 60% of the vote in a toss up election, and probably a couple more that could give them 60% without Obama on the ticket .  Even though all of these states, other than Texas are small, collectively they make up more of the country than CA and NY combined (IL is quite D, but it isn't a 6X/3X level of D).  Look at how many states the Dems still lose in a hypothetical 60/37 national romp.  Those are wasted GOP votes that have no effect on the electoral college.

On the other hand, this would seem to give the GOP a structural senate majority, which hasn't really manifested itself yet.  This is probably because conservatives in competitive or even lean R states are looking to the winners in the 60% GOP states when deciding who to nominate.     

True, but the GOP doesn't waste time or money on those states. As for your last paragraph do you mean Republicans are picking far right candidates to win in states that are only purplish red and that's why they can't get a majority in the senate still?

Well, the issue is that Dems don't have to spend time or money on their 55/45 states even though they waste fewer votes there- WA, ME, OR, MI etc.  Obama even got away with ignoring PA and MN.  If UT were only as partisan as GA, Republicans still wouldn't need to spend there in a 50/50 cycle.
 
As for the last point, I am saying that having complete one party rule in a lot of states increases the risk of nominating candidates that more moderate electorates will see as weird and/or radical.  The GOP keeps dropping the ball in states that lean conservative but aren't ironclad conservative.  They can't even compete in D-leaning states without running moderates, but they don't formally need any D-leaning states for a majority. 

It's getting that way. You're referring to tea partiers like Joe Miller, Sharon Angle, and Ken Buck. People like Rand Paul can win because they're from solid GOP states, but other than red states, tea partiers will have it hard to run for the senate. When it comes to the house it's a little different because it's based on districts and not the entire states. The problem just exists on a smaller scale.

[Smid]

All I'm saying is that it's completely ridiculous for one to say that the party that is currently losing has a higher ceiling than the party that is currently winning.

Not necessarily, it could be that the Democrats have the lower ceiling but the higher floor, due to a smaller advantage in a larger number of states. Consequently, it is possible that the Republicans would require a smaller swing to pick up a swathe of seats, while a similar swing to the Democrats may yield them fewer seats (but mean that they win a greater proportion of their seats on a lower vote level).

[barfbag]

All I'm saying is that it's completely ridiculous for one to say that the party that is currently losing has a higher ceiling than the party that is currently winning.

Not necessarily, it could be that the Democrats have the lower ceiling but the higher floor, due to a smaller advantage in a larger number of states. Consequently, it is possible that the Republicans would require a smaller swing to pick up a swathe of seats, while a similar swing to the Democrats may yield them fewer seats (but mean that they win a greater proportion of their seats on a lower vote level).

Very good point. I'm surprised I didn't think of this first. I can't see the Democrats getting more than 378 EV in today's day and age. Obama's comfortable and moderate margin of victory was about the best they could do.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Democrats

Democratic: 437
Republican: 101

Republicans

Republican: 375
Democratic: 163

[barfbag]

Has anyone considered potential candidates when factoring in their maps?