The Republicans need to expand the map. Here's my proposal.

[JRP1994]

This is the map that they need to actively strive for:

That way, they can afford a few election night disappointments, unlike 2008 and 2012, in which they had to pull an inside straight. If they fight like hell for Map A, then they could fall back on Map B on election night - losing 4 battleground states, but still winning.

[Suburbia]

I like those maps. Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia and even New Mexico are states that the GOP may need to win.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

I totally agree, except I would also add New Mexico, as Republicans will need to do better with Hispanics in order to win anyway.

[Likely Voter]

This is the map that they need to actively strive for:

That is exactly the map the GOP/Romney campaign tried for in 2012. Their narrow path was to win FL,OH,VA+CO, but they also spent resources in IA, NV, WI, NH and (late in the campaign) PA. There were even some outside groups that spent in MI, MN and NM. So I don't see how the above really 'expands the map'.

That being said, the real question for the GOP is PA. Relative to its size, the GOP didn't fully commit to PA and they came in late. If they want to expand the map, they need to go in early to PA both on the ground and in the airways. Or they should ignore it. They can't half-ass it anymore.

[henster]

This is the map that they need to actively strive for:

That is exactly the map the GOP/Romney campaign tried for in 2012. Their narrow path was to win FL,OH,VA+CO, but they also spent resources in IA, NV, WI, NH and (late in the campaign) PA. There were even some outside groups that spent in MI, MN and NM. So I don't see how the above really 'expands the map'.

That being said, the real question for the GOP is PA. Relative to its size, the GOP didn't fully commit to PA and they came in late. If they want to expand the map, they need to go in early to PA both on the ground and in the airways. Or they should ignore it. They can't half-ass it anymore.

The Obama campaign relatively little in PA and still pulled a comfortable win with barely any ads or GOTV operation from the Obama side if it's contested next time I think the Ds would have no problem winning the state again.

[Skill and Chance]

I think the next time Republicans win they will win fairly big.  I am expecting Clinton to run and win in 2016 and I'm not sure there's much the GOP can do to stop that, except to pray that Obama falls toward 30% approval.  But 2020 could easily be reverse 1992, with the Midwest giving out all at once like the Upper South did in 1992:

[whanztastic]

Even at a 5% uniform swing from 2012 the Dems still win. PA is untouchable simply because of how terrible the state party had been. People here really need to pull their head out of the sand and check reality. There is no reality to thinking the GOP will have such a massive swing come 2020 to have a landslide in which they pick up such states such as Illinois, Oregon, New Hampshire and Minnesota. That's just blatant partisan thinking.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Even at a 5% uniform swing from 2012 the Dems still win. PA is untouchable simply because of how terrible the state party had been. People here really need to pull their head out of the sand and check reality. There is no reality to thinking the GOP will have such a massive swing come 2020 to have a landslide in which they pick up such states such as Illinois, Oregon, New Hampshire and Minnesota. That's just blatant partisan thinking.

You don't think people thought the same thing about the Democrats in 1986? Six years is a long time. I admit that two years is not and things are not looking good for the GOP in '16, but it's way too early to say anything about 2020.

[Person Man]

I think the next time Republicans win they will win fairly big.  I am expecting Clinton to run and win in 2016 and I'm not sure there's much the GOP can do to stop that, except to pray that Obama falls toward 30% approval.  But 2020 could easily be reverse 1992, with the Midwest giving out all at once like the Upper South did in 1992:

This actually seems logical, if the Republicans don't expect that they will always be able to pull through down ballot, or at all, in Florida, be able to take North Carolina, Arizona and Georgia for granted and keep expecting a nominal initial advantage in Colorado, nevermind Nevada. Though the above map is a stretch if they think they could win Illinois. That's probably as possible as Democrats winning Texas or at least no more probable than Indiana, South Carolina and Missouri.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

I think the next time Republicans win they will win fairly big.  I am expecting Clinton to run and win in 2016 and I'm not sure there's much the GOP can do to stop that, except to pray that Obama falls toward 30% approval.  But 2020 could easily be reverse 1992, with the Midwest giving out all at once like the Upper South did in 1992:

Why wouldn't the Republicans win NV or NM in this scenario? If they're winning OR, ME-AL and IL in this scenario, surely NV and NM would have fallen to the Republicans, barring a horrible performance with Latinos.

[Cory]

I've always thought that even if the GOP does well in the Mid-West Democratic map expansion in the Upper South and the South-West could undo it.

The "problem map" for the GOP:

It's a narrow win for the Democrats but you can see how even a clean sweep of the Mid-West can be undone by NC, VA, AZ, CO, and FL.

[Mr. Illini]

I think the next time Republicans win they will win fairly big.  I am expecting Clinton to run and win in 2016 and I'm not sure there's much the GOP can do to stop that, except to pray that Obama falls toward 30% approval.  But 2020 could easily be reverse 1992, with the Midwest giving out all at once like the Upper South did in 1992:

Illinois and Oregon fall long after New Mexico and Nevada. Come on now.

[courts]

Rand Paul or Bust. I don't care what the GOP does. If they don't elect RP, they won't win against Hilary.

stop being dumb

[whanztastic]

Let's not forget demographic changes:

[Person Man]

If the Republicans expand the map into Michigan, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and lock up Ohio and make Democrats work hard for Illinois, then where will Democrats go?

[Bull Moose Base]

I agree. Winning enough electoral votes to win the White House is a foolproof strategy.

[MurrayBannerman]

If the Republicans expand the map into Michigan, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and lock up Ohio and make Democrats work hard for Illinois, then where will Democrats go?

Canada

[Person Man]

I agree. Winning enough electoral votes to win the White House is a foolproof strategy.

If the Republicans expand the map into Michigan, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and lock up Ohio and make Democrats work hard for Illinois, then where will Democrats go?

Canada

Really interested to see how these things work out.

[whanztastic]

I agree. Winning enough electoral votes to win the White House is a foolproof strategy.

It's like some posters think it's just a matter of "winning", like its a choice and Romney didn't chose to win in 2012.

[Rockefeller GOP]

I agree. Winning enough electoral votes to win the White House is a foolproof strategy.

It's like some posters think it's just a matter of "winning", like its a choice and Romney didn't chose to win in 2012.

No, but it's hilariously ignorant how some forum Democrats act like this pivotal moment in history has happened and Republicans can never win another election again.

[moderatevoter]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Matty]

I agree. Winning enough electoral votes to win the White House is a foolproof strategy.

It's like some posters think it's just a matter of "winning", like its a choice and Romney didn't chose to win in 2012.

No, but it's hilariously ignorant how some forum Democrats act like this pivotal moment in history has happened and Republicans can never win another election again.

How many times must it be explained that it is not ignorant? Demographics are demographics. You can change strategies, but you can't change demographic make-up,

[SPQR]

I agree. Winning enough electoral votes to win the White House is a foolproof strategy.

It's like some posters think it's just a matter of "winning", like its a choice and Romney didn't chose to win in 2012.

No, but it's hilariously ignorant how some forum Democrats act like this pivotal moment in history has happened and Republicans can never win another election again.

Huh?
I agree with the original post in that the OP doesn't go much beyond stating the obvious.
Republicans must compete in those states which are the closest in order to win an election again.
Duh. The issue is HOW to do it.
It's not like Republicans should start aiming at states like MD or DE.

[pbrower2a]

I agree. Winning enough electoral votes to win the White House is a foolproof strategy.

It's like some posters think it's just a matter of "winning", like its a choice and Romney didn't chose to win in 2012.

No, but it's hilariously ignorant how some forum Democrats act like this pivotal moment in history has happened and Republicans can never win another election again.

Republicans have a winning coalition only in the event of a catastrophic failure of the Democratic nominee. They really need a new alignment of voters in Presidential elections to win. Paradoxically such is easier in the wake of blowout victories for the Other Side in which the winners end up with voters supporting opposite positions on key issues.

[pbrower2a]

As it is, the Democratic coalition for Presidential victories has yet to go into the area in which the Democrats have to keep together interest groups potentially at odds with each other. Ronald Reagan won big by putting together a coalition that included Southern white Democrats (then conservative on race but still loyal to the New Deal) and somewhat-liberal Rockefeller Republicans. By 1992 that coalition shattered.

The Republicans could win the Presidency with an electorate similar to that of 2010 -- but that now looks like a shrinking coalition.

Partisan realignments usually happen under the cover of blowouts.