The two coasts really do have more electoral importance than middle America

[Non Swing Voter]

http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bEqE

Never actually realized it's possible to win without winning a single non-coastal state (although technically PA and VT aren't really coastal).

If Democrats keep expanding into the Southeast, Republican gains in the upper Midwest could be meaningless, especially since that region will probably continue to lose electoral votes.

Even if Democrats can never convert some coastal states like South Carolina and Georgia, that's offset by a few non-coastal states that will probably not vote Republican on the Presidential level for a really long time (Illinois, New Mexico, Nevada, etc.).

[minionofmidas]

The east coast doesn't end at Florida, either. -_-

[eric82oslo]

The east coast doesn't end at Florida, either. -_-

I Guess this is the real Coastal America, even more impressive than the initial map : http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bErt

[eric82oslo]

This might be the map we will be looking at in 2 or 3 cycles from now: http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bErD

Dems 415 - Reps 123, impressive isn't it? Though Hillary could possible win even bigger than this, if she takes most of Appalachia, plus Texas and Arizona.

[old timey villain]

This might be the map we will be looking at in 2 or 3 cycles from now: http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bErt

Dems 415 - Reps 123, impressive isn't it? Though Hillary could possible win even bigger than this, if she takes most of Appalachia, plus Texas and Arizona.

Highly doubt that. What the hell happened in Vermont?

[eric82oslo]

This might be the map we will be looking at in 2 or 3 cycles from now: http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bErt

Dems 415 - Reps 123, impressive isn't it? Though Hillary could possible win even bigger than this, if she takes most of Appalachia, plus Texas and Arizona.

Highly doubt that. What the hell happened in Vermont?

Sorry, I misquoted the link!

Here is the actual link: http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bErD

[barfbag]

Where there's water, there's life so more people live on coasts as well as near rivers and other valuable resources.

[retromike22]

Florida might be underwater in a few election cycles

[Spamage]

This might be the map we will be looking at in 2 or 3 cycles from now: http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bErD

Dems 415 - Reps 123, impressive isn't it? Though Hillary could possible win even bigger than this, if she takes most of Appalachia, plus Texas and Arizona.

Very, very unlikely barring a landslide.

[DC Al Fine]

This might be the map we will be looking at in 2 or 3 cycles from now: http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bErD

Dems 415 - Reps 123, impressive isn't it? Though Hillary could possible win even bigger than this, if she takes most of Appalachia, plus Texas and Arizona.

Very, very unlikely barring a landslide.

The GOP won Texas by double digits in a landslide loss. As Spamage said, it would take a landslide to win, not the projected growth in Hispanics for Hillary to win Texas.

[eric82oslo]

It's embarrassing to Democrats win they win big nationally for President, but loose the heartland.

So you think rural people are worth more than other people?

[eric82oslo]

This might be the map we will be looking at in 2 or 3 cycles from now: http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bErD

Dems 415 - Reps 123, impressive isn't it? Though Hillary could possible win even bigger than this, if she takes most of Appalachia, plus Texas and Arizona.

Very, very unlikely barring a landslide.

The GOP won Texas by double digits in a landslide loss. As Spamage said, it would take a landslide to win, not the projected growth in Hispanics for Hillary to win Texas.

I'm thinking Hillary landslide + her strong approval among Southern religious/evangelical whites + her crazy latin followership (which is at the very least three times as strong as the current latino crush on Obama) + Hillary choosing a latino running mate for her ticket which accidentially also happens to be from Texas (and coincidentially nicknamed the "2004 Obama figure in 2012" + sudden demographic changes + Battleground Texas + Democrats actually going to invest in the state of the art ground game in Texas for the first time in 25 years or more come 2016...all of these factors taken in concert might very well indicate that Hillary might squeeze out a 1% local victory in the end.

[Sol]

The Democrats don't really have any hope in TX.

[Qymaen]

Why isn't Alaska counted as a coastal state? Seems odd...

[Qymaen]

It's embarrassing to Democrats win they win big nationally for President, but loose the heartland.

Why is that embarrasing?

[Mechaman]

It's embarrassing to Democrats win they win big nationally for President, but loose the heartland.

You know that's not exactly a rare occurrence, right?

Off the top of my head:

I would've included some Republican examples from the early 20th century, but given the Jim Crow regimes in the South that's kind of a "duh!"

In regards to the notion that underperforming in one section of the country while winning big should be "embarrassing".

[opebo]

It's embarrassing to Democrats win they win big nationally for President, but loose the heartland.

No the heartland is just racists and ignorants.

[ElectionsGuy]

This might be the map we will be looking at in 2 or 3 cycles from now: http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bErD

Dems 415 - Reps 123, impressive isn't it? Though Hillary could possible win even bigger than this, if she takes most of Appalachia, plus Texas and Arizona.

And in 6 or more cycles from now:

http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bEII

Because, the country can only get bluer!

[Mr. Illini]

This might be the map we will be looking at in 2 or 3 cycles from now: http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bErD

Dems 415 - Reps 123, impressive isn't it? Though Hillary could possible win even bigger than this, if she takes most of Appalachia, plus Texas and Arizona.

Hold your horses there. It will probably be a little more something like this.

http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bEIP

Also, as for the upper Midwest going Republican, I don't no why everyone thinks it. Midwestern suburbs are getting more Democratic, the cities are holding their ground, and the rural areas are trending slightly right but not enough to turn these states. Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota hold Democrat for the foreseeable future. Wisconsin and Iowa settle into the "lean Dem" roles they've developed since being swing states 10 years ago. Ohio may even join those two. Indiana stays Republican, but they're basically the south.

[kcguy]

Living in a city, I never realized how few Americans actually live on the Plains.  But if my numbers are right--feel free to double-check me--fewer people live in Wyoming and North Dakota combined than live within the city limits of San Antonio, Texas.

Years ago, I had someone complain on a web forum that a person could get elected president by only winning 9 states.   I responded that it didn't bother me, that I thought that any candidate who could manage to win both New York and Texas, both Georgia and Illinois, deserved to win the presidency.

[stevekamp]

Good response about winning the nine states, but one argument made by the Electoral College critics is that someone could win each of the Big Nine by one vote and lose the rest by many more than nine votes.

In 2004, John Kerry would have been elected with another 119,000 Ohio votes (or switching 60,000 Bush voters in Ohio) despite losing the national popular vote by 2.8 million.

[Non Swing Voter]

Except for Florida and maybe 1 or 2 others, most of the highly populated states aren't even competitive.

I also think that in 2004, Bush focused a great deal on boosting his popular vote totals to avoid another embarrassment like 2000, whereas Kerry focused his resources on a few states like Ohio.  So it's not entirely surprising that there was almost an electoral/popular vote split.

[eric82oslo]

Except for Florida and maybe 1 or 2 others, most of the highly populated states aren't even competitive.

Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, Michigan are all highly populated. And then we're still just talking 2012 competitive.

[Non Swing Voter]

Except for Florida and maybe 1 or 2 others, most of the highly populated states aren't even competitive.

Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, Michigan are all highly populated. And then we're still just talking 2012 competitive.

When I said "highly populated" I meant the top 7 or 8 in population.  Of those, I only consider Florida and Ohio to be competitive. 

Pennsylvania, which hasn't voted Republican in what?  3 decades almost?  isn't competitive IMO.