Post the best maps for both parties

[barfbag]

Let's assume both parties will get at least 44% in today's day and age. I'll even say the Democrats would get at least 47%. However, numbers set aside what are the best case scenarios for both parties in a presidential election? How many states and electoral votes can each party get assuming the election stays within a realistic 2-11 points?

[Person Man]

The absolute best for a Democrat. 396 electoral votes, About 55% of the vote.

The absolute best for a Republican. 378 electoral votes, About 55% of the vote.

Though the GOP's EV ceiling is lower, there is that very distinct possibility that if things gets really bad for the Democrats (endemic heinous corruption problems, a crisis of national survival and a huge cultural shift against them all at once), the GOP could do much better.

[JRP1994]

Going strictly by PVI (and not accounting for elasticity), and assuming a win of 55% to 44%.....

Democrats:

Democrats: 369
Republicans: 169


For Republicans:

Republicans: 372
Democrats: 166

[Person Man]

The bottom map would definitely be a 2008-esque performance for an R candidate where there is a transformational and ideological candidate running against a corrupt and incompetent administration. A lot of people will be talking about this candidate reaching out to historical D areas that haven't voted R in decades and Independent areas that have left the R column.

[PolitiJunkie]

Tennessee goes for the Democrat, but not Georgia?

[PolitiJunkie]

Democrats:

Republicans:

[barfbag]

Democrats:

Republicans:

Republicans can't do better than 275 EV regardless of circumstances? Yea ok

[Person Man]

Democrats:

Republicans:

Republicans can't do better than 275 EV regardless of circumstances? Yea ok

That would probably a good map in September where the Republican is up by 3 in Ohio and 5 in Florida and Colorado and then ends up with almost a 40 state landslide in November, but still only wins the EV about as well as Clinton or Obama.

[barfbag]

What would your maps look like?

[Person Man]

I posted them already.

[barfbag]

I posted them already.

Oh yes I see. It's pretty close to mine.

[ElectionsGuy]

Democrats:

Republicans:

Thank you TrollJunkie, for your fair, non-partisan, and reasonable maps.

[HansOslo]

Democrats:

Republicans:

The Democrats could probably carry states like South Carolina, Kentucky, Texas, Tennessee, Ariziona, Louisiana and Mississippi in a real blowout election. Let’s say that the economy is in tatters, the previous Republican administration is wracked with scandals and the Republican nominee is outed as some sort of pervert. If the table are turned however, and the same applies to the Democrats, then the playing field will be more expanded for the Republicans than your map suggests.
They should be able to compete in, and carry New Hampshire, Maine, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon and maybe even Minnesota, Connecticut, New Jersey and Delaware. In other words a repeat of the 1988 Bush landslide.

[MATTROSE94]

Democratic Ceiling:

Republican Ceiling:

[Mister Mets]

Based on the 2012 map, the Democratic ceiling is probably Obama's 2012 numbers with North Carolina, to keep it within eleven percent of the popular vote. That would be

That would be 347 electoral votes.

It may be possible to win more votes with a candidate with a particular regional advantage. Brian Schweitzer could get the above map plus Montana. Heidi Heitkamp could get that map plus North Dakota. Janet Napolitano might be able to swing Arizona.

A Republican frontrunner is about to get reelected big in New Jersey, so the ceiling would be every state Romney won, every state Romney lost by single digits, New Mexico and New Jersey. That would be 367 electoral votes.

[PolitiJunkie]

Based on the 2012 map, the Democratic ceiling is probably Obama's 2012 numbers with North Carolina, to keep it within eleven percent of the popular vote. That would be

That would be 347 electoral votes.

It may be possible to win more votes with a candidate with a particular regional advantage. Brian Schweitzer could get the above map plus Montana. Heidi Heitkamp could get that map plus North Dakota. Janet Napolitano might be able to swing Arizona.

A Republican frontrunner is about to get reelected big in New Jersey, so the ceiling would be every state Romney won, every state Romney lost by single digits, New Mexico and New Jersey. That would be 367 electoral votes.

Yes, the party that has lost the popular vote in five of the last six elections, lost seats in a Senate year that should have been prime for pickups due to a wave six years prior, has a vocal and dominating extremist wing that is constantly embarrassing the party and is toxic to the general populous, and is at a severe demographic disadvantage has a higher ceiling than the other party. Yes, that's correct.

[barfbag]

Based on the 2012 map, the Democratic ceiling is probably Obama's 2012 numbers with North Carolina, to keep it within eleven percent of the popular vote. That would be

That would be 347 electoral votes.

It may be possible to win more votes with a candidate with a particular regional advantage. Brian Schweitzer could get the above map plus Montana. Heidi Heitkamp could get that map plus North Dakota. Janet Napolitano might be able to swing Arizona.

A Republican frontrunner is about to get reelected big in New Jersey, so the ceiling would be every state Romney won, every state Romney lost by single digits, New Mexico and New Jersey. That would be 367 electoral votes.

Yes, the party that has lost the popular vote in five of the last six elections, lost seats in a Senate year that should have been prime for pickups due to a wave six years prior, has a vocal and dominating extremist wing that is constantly embarrassing the party and is toxic to the general populous, and is at a severe demographic disadvantage has a higher ceiling than the other party. Yes, that's correct.

like in New Jersey

[Mister Mets]

Based on the 2012 map, the Democratic ceiling is probably Obama's 2012 numbers with North Carolina, to keep it within eleven percent of the popular vote. That would be

That would be 347 electoral votes.

It may be possible to win more votes with a candidate with a particular regional advantage. Brian Schweitzer could get the above map plus Montana. Heidi Heitkamp could get that map plus North Dakota. Janet Napolitano might be able to swing Arizona.

A Republican frontrunner is about to get reelected big in New Jersey, so the ceiling would be every state Romney won, every state Romney lost by single digits, New Mexico and New Jersey. That would be 367 electoral votes.

Yes, the party that has lost the popular vote in five of the last six elections, lost seats in a Senate year that should have been prime for pickups due to a wave six years prior, has a vocal and dominating extremist wing that is constantly embarrassing the party and is toxic to the general populous, and is at a severe demographic disadvantage has a higher ceiling than the other party. Yes, that's correct.

Pretty much. Look at how the party that managed to barely win the majority of the popular votes once in ten elections from 1968-2004 did in 2008.

The 2012 presidential election wikipedia page is pretty convenient, allowing the states to be ranked by the margin of victory.

If a Democrat can outperform Obama by 2.05 points (a tall order but possible), they win North Carolina. But they'll have to improve on that by more than 5.5 points to win the next state.

Obama won Indiana in 2008, but that seemed to be a fluke, that only happens when a celebrity from a nearby state is on the ticket. It doesn't work once he has a record as President. Plus, the state has gotten more conservative.

On the other side, states are just clustered together more. A Republican who outperforms Romney by one point wins Florida. Two more points, he wins Ohio. One more point, he wins Virginia. Two more points, he wins Colorado, Pennyslvania, New Hampshire and Iowa. One more point, he wins Nevada and Wisconsin. One more point, he wins Minnesota. 1.5% more, he wins Michigan. A little bit more, he wins New Mexico. And he's two points short of Oregon.

It just seems to me that Republicans have a better shot of winning New Mexico than Democrats do of winning Georgia.

[PolitiJunkie]

Based on the 2012 map, the Democratic ceiling is probably Obama's 2012 numbers with North Carolina, to keep it within eleven percent of the popular vote. That would be

That would be 347 electoral votes.

It may be possible to win more votes with a candidate with a particular regional advantage. Brian Schweitzer could get the above map plus Montana. Heidi Heitkamp could get that map plus North Dakota. Janet Napolitano might be able to swing Arizona.

A Republican frontrunner is about to get reelected big in New Jersey, so the ceiling would be every state Romney won, every state Romney lost by single digits, New Mexico and New Jersey. That would be 367 electoral votes.

Yes, the party that has lost the popular vote in five of the last six elections, lost seats in a Senate year that should have been prime for pickups due to a wave six years prior, has a vocal and dominating extremist wing that is constantly embarrassing the party and is toxic to the general populous, and is at a severe demographic disadvantage has a higher ceiling than the other party. Yes, that's correct.

Pretty much. Look at how the party that managed to barely win the majority of the popular votes once in ten elections from 1968-2004 did in 2008.

The 2012 presidential election wikipedia page is pretty convenient, allowing the states to be ranked by the margin of victory.

If a Democrat can outperform Obama by 2.05 points (a tall order but possible), they win North Carolina. But they'll have to improve on that by more than 5.5 points to win the next state.

Obama won Indiana in 2008, but that seemed to be a fluke, that only happens when a celebrity from a nearby state is on the ticket. It doesn't work once he has a record as President. Plus, the state has gotten more conservative.

On the other side, states are just clustered together more. A Republican who outperforms Romney by one point wins Florida. Two more points, he wins Ohio. One more point, he wins Virginia. Two more points, he wins Colorado, Pennyslvania, New Hampshire and Iowa. One more point, he wins Nevada and Wisconsin. One more point, he wins Minnesota. 1.5% more, he wins Michigan. A little bit more, he wins New Mexico. And he's two points short of Oregon.

It just seems to me that Republicans have a better shot of winning New Mexico than Democrats do of winning Georgia.

Your logic is disgustingly problematic. First and foremost, you assume a uniform swing. When you say things like "If a Democrat can outperform Obama by 2.05 points (a tall order but possible), they win North Carolina. But they'll have to improve on that by more than 5.5 points to win the next state." and "one point wins Florida. Two more points, he wins Ohio. One more point, he wins Virginia. Two more points, he wins Colorado, Pennyslvania, New Hampshire and Iowa," you are completely disregarding the differences between candidates and the differing idealogical, demographic, and regional appeals they have. Additionally, you make the point that, with the exception of North Carolina, Romney dominated in all his states, but several of Obama's states were won by a thin margin. That's because those are called SWING STATES and he WON them, hence the election. If a Republican had won New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Michigan, and Minnesota, we'd be talking about how a lot of his states were by a small margin, and how, other than the Democrat's closest states, Oregon and Maine, he dominated in all his states. I mean, come on. That's the whole point- many states are going to be close either way, it just happens that in this election, Obama won almost all of them. I fully stand by my statement that to say the Republicans have a HIGHER fing ceiling than Democrats in the electoral college is about as heinous as the co-chairman of the RNC saying "I invite Joe to join the winning team" with regards to the GOP's (misguided) overtures toward Joe Manchin.

[ElectionsGuy]

Based on the 2012 map, the Democratic ceiling is probably Obama's 2012 numbers with North Carolina, to keep it within eleven percent of the popular vote. That would be

That would be 347 electoral votes.

It may be possible to win more votes with a candidate with a particular regional advantage. Brian Schweitzer could get the above map plus Montana. Heidi Heitkamp could get that map plus North Dakota. Janet Napolitano might be able to swing Arizona.

A Republican frontrunner is about to get reelected big in New Jersey, so the ceiling would be every state Romney won, every state Romney lost by single digits, New Mexico and New Jersey. That would be 367 electoral votes.

Yes, the party that has lost the popular vote in five of the last six elections, lost seats in a Senate year that should have been prime for pickups due to a wave six years prior, has a vocal and dominating extremist wing that is constantly embarrassing the party and is toxic to the general populous, and is at a severe demographic disadvantage has a higher ceiling than the other party. Yes, that's correct.

We shouldn't be looking at this in a partisan stance, Both ceilings should be the same for each party. I don't want to hear any "Republicans don't have a chance" BS because that doesn't cut it. It is nothing but partisanship to think that one party has a permanent advantage. I'll post my map in a few minutes.

[PolitiJunkie]

Based on the 2012 map, the Democratic ceiling is probably Obama's 2012 numbers with North Carolina, to keep it within eleven percent of the popular vote. That would be

That would be 347 electoral votes.

It may be possible to win more votes with a candidate with a particular regional advantage. Brian Schweitzer could get the above map plus Montana. Heidi Heitkamp could get that map plus North Dakota. Janet Napolitano might be able to swing Arizona.

A Republican frontrunner is about to get reelected big in New Jersey, so the ceiling would be every state Romney won, every state Romney lost by single digits, New Mexico and New Jersey. That would be 367 electoral votes.

Yes, the party that has lost the popular vote in five of the last six elections, lost seats in a Senate year that should have been prime for pickups due to a wave six years prior, has a vocal and dominating extremist wing that is constantly embarrassing the party and is toxic to the general populous, and is at a severe demographic disadvantage has a higher ceiling than the other party. Yes, that's correct.

We shouldn't be looking at this in a partisan stance, Both ceilings should be the same for each party. I don't want to hear any "Republicans don't have a chance" BS because that doesn't cut it. It is nothing but partisanship to think that one party has a permanent advantage. I'll post my map in a few minutes.

I don't buy into any of that "permanent advantage" or "Republican dying" crap either. My maps earlier were in jest, just like how I answered "Indiana, Missouri, Georgia, Arizona, Montana, Texas, Alaska" in the thread that asked for the seven most important swing states of 2016. 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.

[greenforest32]

Going strictly by PVI (and not accounting for elasticity), and assuming a win of 55% to 44%.....

Democrats:

Democrats: 369
Republicans: 169


For Republicans:

Republicans: 372
Democrats: 166

I think this is a good projection for a generic 55%-44% win nationally. It is based on 2008-2012 PVI though and if we're thinking of the next election in 2016, I could see Arizona and Georgia trending Democratic a little bit between 2012 and 2016, say going from R+6/7 to R+5 by Nov. 2016. That would mean a Democrat could win them in the first map (hitting 55% nationally).

[ElectionsGuy]

Based on the 2012 map, the Democratic ceiling is probably Obama's 2012 numbers with North Carolina, to keep it within eleven percent of the popular vote. That would be

That would be 347 electoral votes.

It may be possible to win more votes with a candidate with a particular regional advantage. Brian Schweitzer could get the above map plus Montana. Heidi Heitkamp could get that map plus North Dakota. Janet Napolitano might be able to swing Arizona.

A Republican frontrunner is about to get reelected big in New Jersey, so the ceiling would be every state Romney won, every state Romney lost by single digits, New Mexico and New Jersey. That would be 367 electoral votes.

Yes, the party that has lost the popular vote in five of the last six elections, lost seats in a Senate year that should have been prime for pickups due to a wave six years prior, has a vocal and dominating extremist wing that is constantly embarrassing the party and is toxic to the general populous, and is at a severe demographic disadvantage has a higher ceiling than the other party. Yes, that's correct.

We shouldn't be looking at this in a partisan stance, Both ceilings should be the same for each party. I don't want to hear any "Republicans don't have a chance" BS because that doesn't cut it. It is nothing but partisanship to think that one party has a permanent advantage. I'll post my map in a few minutes.

I don't buy into any of that "permanent advantage" or "Republican dying" crap either. My maps earlier were in jest, just like how I answered "Indiana, Missouri, Georgia, Arizona, Montana, Texas, Alaska" in the thread that asked for the seven most important swing states of 2016. 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.

OK, I'm glad you don't buy into that but we should be basing this on equal PVI/MOV for both parties, I'm not going to take in any kind of advantage for the party that's doing better, no matter who is winning.

[ElectionsGuy]

Evaluated with equal judgement and current trends, here are my maps.

Republicans at their best:

Republican: 374
Democrat: 164

Democrats at their best:

Democrat: 385
Republican: 153

[Mister Mets]

Your logic is disgustingly problematic. First and foremost, you assume a uniform swing. When you say things like "If a Democrat can outperform Obama by 2.05 points (a tall order but possible), they win North Carolina. But they'll have to improve on that by more than 5.5 points to win the next state." and "one point wins Florida. Two more points, he wins Ohio. One more point, he wins Virginia. Two more points, he wins Colorado, Pennyslvania, New Hampshire and Iowa," you are completely disregarding the differences between candidates and the differing idealogical, demographic, and regional appeals they have. Additionally, you make the point that, with the exception of North Carolina, Romney dominated in all his states, but several of Obama's states were won by a thin margin. That's because those are called SWING STATES and he WON them, hence the election. If a Republican had won New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Michigan, and Minnesota, we'd be talking about how a lot of his states were by a small margin, and how, other than the Democrat's closest states, Oregon and Maine, he dominated in all his states. I mean, come on. That's the whole point- many states are going to be close either way, it just happens that in this election, Obama won almost all of them. I fully stand by my statement that to say the Republicans have a HIGHER fing ceiling than Democrats in the electoral college is about as heinous as the co-chairman of the RNC saying "I invite Joe to join the winning team" with regards to the GOP's (misguided) overtures toward Joe Manchin.

Obviously, in a Republican ceiling election, they'll take all the swing states.

And that leaves the states Democrats will keep in a catastrophic year for the party. Due to quirks of the population, I think those states have less electoral votes than the state Republicans will keep in catastrophic years for the party. I'm curious what states you think I left out from the scenarios barfbag suggested (an election in which the losing party gets at least 44 percent) and whether any states just wouldn't be in play under any circumstances.

New Jersey is a major reason the Republican ceiling is higher than the Democratic ceiling. A popular Republican Governor who is widely considered a potential candidate for President is about to get reelected. This suggests that in a good year for Republican nominee Chris Christie, he could win his home state. So it's part of the ceiling. On the Democratic side, Napolitano and Schweitzer could put their home states into play, but they're not considered frontrunners for their party's nomination. Julian Casro has been talked up, but he's yet to win statewide office in Texas, so that state's not in play, even in the unlikely event he gets nominated. Hillary Clinton was first lady of Arkansas over twenty years ago. Since then, she's been a Senator from New York and served in the cabinet of a guy who lose the state by 23 points. So that state's not going back into play. Although that would hardly be necessary.