Will 2016 have more "swing" states than 2012?

[Non Swing Voter]

IMO - yes.  Pretty much all of the 2012 swing states will be back, however, Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Minnesota could be added to the list.

[Mr. Morden]

Are you defining "swing states" as those that are closest to being even between the two candidates, or those that are closest to the "tipping point" state?

[eric82oslo]

In 2012, 3 states (Florida, North Carolina & Ohio) had a victory margin of less than 3%, 4 states were within 5% (adding Virginia), 13 states were within 8% (including Georgia & Minnesota), while 16 states had a margin of less than 10% (adding Missouri, Arizona & Michigan).

Early polling (of only 29 states, Nevada, Indiana & Missouri not included) so far have 5 states with a current victory margin of 3% or less (Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia, New Hampshire & Arkansas), 12 states with a 5% victory margin or less (adding Virginia, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Iowa, Michigan & Louisiana), 20 states with an 8% victory margin or less (adding Wisconsin, Florida, Minnesota, Ohio, Alaska, South Carolina, Texas & Maine) and an astonishing 23 states which right now would project to result in a victory margin of less than 10% (adding the final 3 of Mississippi, Kansas & New Jersey). That leaves only 6 polled states which all seem to be far out of reach for the other party's eventual candidate (Oregon, Montana, West Virginia, New Mexico, Wyoming & New York).

So the answer is yes. Even if states like New Jersey, Maine and Kansas in the future should slip out of the too-close-to-call-today gang; also known as the within 10% of the other candidate group.

[NHLiberal]

If it's Clinton and Christie, probably, just because they both could potentially be competitive in a greater number of states than previous candidates, though I'd imagine the final map would end up looking very similar to the Obama 2012 map (i.e. there will be talk about Hillary winning AR/KY/WV/LA/MO, and there will be talk about Christie winning NJ/PA/ME/NH/MN, and they'll poll better in those states than the previous nominee from their party and maybe even visit/spend some money in those states, but in the end they probably won't actually win any of them).

[illegaloperation]

I am guessing that you define swing states as states that's very close to the tipping point.

[Non Swing Voter]

Are you defining "swing states" as those that are closest to being even between the two candidates, or those that are closest to the "tipping point" state?

When I made the thread I was thinking of defining them more broadly: what news outlets and political scientists deem the swing states to be in 2016.  In 2008 and 2012 there were about 9 or 10 swing states that were paid attention to, with some variation (e.g., some news channels considered Wisconsin a swing state while others did not).  In 2016, I expect the news outlets and political scientists to focus on more states.

Though I think this list will correlate somewhat with the two categories you have outlined above as well.

[Non Swing Voter]

I am guessing that the question should be: "Will 2016 have more battleground states than 2012?"

Swing states are states that's very close to the tipping point.

Yes, this is what I intended.  Hopefully people see this and answer accordingly.  Sorry for the confusion.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Defining 'swing/battleground' as any state that receives significant attention from both candidates. In 2012, there were 10 states fitting such description: OH, VA, FL, PA, NH, IA, CO, WI, NV, NC

In 2016, there are different swing/battleground states depending on the matchup, but the number is generally greater than 10, so yes, there will likely be more battlegrounds than there were in 2012. A few examples:

Clinton/Christie - MT, NV, AZ, CO, MN, WI, IA, AR, OH, PA, NJ, NH, VA, NC, GA, FL (16 states)
Clinton/Walker - MT, AZ, CO, WI, IA, AR, OH, PA, NH, VA, NC, GA, FL (13 states
Biden/Bush - All 2012 plus OR (11 states)
Biden/Santorum - AZ, CO, MT, IA, OH, PA, VA, NC, GA, FL (10 states)

[illegaloperation]

Defining 'swing/battleground' as any state that receives significant attention from both candidates. In 2012, there were 10 states fitting such description: OH, VA, FL, PA, NH, IA, CO, WI, NV, NC

In 2016, there are different swing/battleground states depending on the matchup, but the number is generally greater than 10, so yes, there will likely be more battlegrounds than there were in 2012. A few examples:

Clinton/Christie - MT, NV, AZ, CO, MN, WI, IA, AR, OH, PA, NJ, NH, VA, NC, GA, FL (16 states)
Clinton/Walker - MT, AZ, CO, WI, IA, AR, OH, PA, NH, VA, NC, GA, FL (13 states
Biden/Bush - All 2012 plus OR (11 states)
Biden/Santorum - AZ, CO, MT, IA, OH, PA, VA, NC, GA, FL (10 states)

I want to restate the definition of "swing state".

Swing state is a state that can swing the election. For example, North Carolina was NOT a swing state in 2008 or 2012 because Obama would have already won the election if the won North Carolina.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Defining 'swing/battleground' as any state that receives significant attention from both candidates. In 2012, there were 10 states fitting such description: OH, VA, FL, PA, NH, IA, CO, WI, NV, NC

In 2016, there are different swing/battleground states depending on the matchup, but the number is generally greater than 10, so yes, there will likely be more battlegrounds than there were in 2012. A few examples:

Clinton/Christie - MT, NV, AZ, CO, MN, WI, IA, AR, OH, PA, NJ, NH, VA, NC, GA, FL (16 states)
Clinton/Walker - MT, AZ, CO, WI, IA, AR, OH, PA, NH, VA, NC, GA, FL (13 states
Biden/Bush - All 2012 plus OR (11 states)
Biden/Santorum - AZ, CO, MT, IA, OH, PA, VA, NC, GA, FL (10 states)

I want to restate the definition of "swing state".

Swing state is a state that can swing the election. For example, North Carolina was NOT a swing state in 2008 or 2012 because Obama would have already won the election if the won North Carolina.

Well, under that definition, things change:

2012 swing states: OH, VA, IA, PA (only in a scenario where it goes for Romney), CO, NV, WI, NH (8 states)

Clinton/Christie: NV, CO, WI, IA, OH, PA, NJ, NH, VA (9 states)
Clinton/Walker: CO, WI, IA, PA (only in a scenario where it goes for Walker), OH, NH, VA (7 states)
Biden/Bush: OH, VA, NH, IA, PA, NH, CO, WI, NV, OR (10 states)
Biden/Santorum: CO, IA, OH, PA, VA, FL (6 states)

[Rockefeller GOP]

I think so.  In a highly competitive Christie-Clinton matchup in which both candidates exert pretty substantial crossover appeal that the 2008 and 2012 candidates couldn't (Clinton making gains with Southern and working class Whites, Christie making gains with socially moderate/liberal suburban voters), I could see this battleground map:
- Darker Blue = Safe GOP
- Lighter Blue = Lean GOP
- Gray = Tossup
- Lighter Red = Lean Democrat
- Darker Red = Safe Democrat

NOTE: The shades don't necessarily represent popular vote percentage as much as which states would have even the potential to flip (i.e., MS might be closer than KY in the end, but it's not flipping).

My actual prediction in said scenario is this:

[NHLiberal]

I think so.  In a highly competitive Christie-Clinton matchup in which both candidates exert pretty substantial crossover appeal that the 2008 and 2012 candidates couldn't (Clinton making gains with Southern and working class Whites, Christie making gains with socially moderate/liberal suburban voters), I could see this battleground map:
- Darker Blue = Safe GOP
- Lighter Blue = Lean GOP
- Gray = Tossup
- Lighter Red = Lean Democrat
- Darker Red = Safe Democrat

NOTE: The shades don't necessarily represent popular vote percentage as much as which states would have even the potential to flip (i.e., MS might be closer than KY in the end, but it's not flipping).

My actual prediction in said scenario is this:

Ok he may have a chance there but ME-2 would not "lean" GOP in Christie v. Clinton that's ridiculous

[Mr. Illini]

It's too early to tell, but likely yes.

An early match-up of Clinton vs. Generic Pub. The increasing # of battleground states will be a result of a shift in narrative with a different Democratic candidate as well as a few states that the Dems will start to target and in the past have not.

Light, medium, and dark colors correspond to safe, likely, and lean predictions. Gray states are where the most money goes and 30% shade are states where money is spent. I think we'd have a similar number of true "battleground" states as 2012 but a higher number of "lean" states where money will be spent.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

States where the vote will be under 55%   :

[Bull Moose Base]

Defining 'swing/battleground' as any state that receives significant attention from both candidates. In 2012, there were 10 states fitting such description: OH, VA, FL, PA, NH, IA, CO, WI, NV, NC

In 2016, there are different swing/battleground states depending on the matchup, but the number is generally greater than 10, so yes, there will likely be more battlegrounds than there were in 2012. A few examples:

Clinton/Christie - MT, NV, AZ, CO, MN, WI, IA, AR, OH, PA, NJ, NH, VA, NC, GA, FL (16 states)
Clinton/Walker - MT, AZ, CO, WI, IA, AR, OH, PA, NH, VA, NC, GA, FL (13 states
Biden/Bush - All 2012 plus OR (11 states)
Biden/Santorum - AZ, CO, MT, IA, OH, PA, VA, NC, GA, FL (10 states)

I want to restate the definition of "swing state".

Swing state is a state that can swing the election. For example, North Carolina was NOT a swing state in 2008 or 2012 because Obama would have already won the election if the won North Carolina.

Using that definition, there were no swing states in any of the 4 elections won by Clinton and Obama. And I bet there won't be any in 2016 either.

[Mr. Illini]

States where the vote will be under 55%   :

Illinois is going to trend Republican compared to 2004, which didn't have a home-state effect? Missouri is going to vote 55%+ with Clinton on the ballot when it didn't even do so with the hated Obama on there?

I don't buy it.

[Free Bird]

What about candidates other than Clinton? What are some states that would go into play with someone like Schweitzer or Biden?

[Never]

What about candidates other than Clinton? What are some states that would go into play with someone like Schweitzer or Biden?

Okay, let's start with Biden vs. Generic Republican:

>90% coloring = Safe
>50% coloring = Likely
>30% coloring = Lean
   Gray coloring = Tossup

Republican: 235 EVs
Biden: 227 EVs

The Republican would start out with a slight advantage, but wouldn't be the prohibitive favorite. The traditional battleground states of Ohio, Colorado, and Virginia are tossups as usual, along with Iowa, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. On a good night for the Republicans, the party could move New Hampshire from the Lean Democratic category, and on a great night the GOP could even bring into play states like Nevada, Minnesota, Maine (2nd Congressional District), Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, and New Jersey (in that order from most to least likely). Conversely, on a good night for Biden, he could start moving into right-leaning territory by winning Florida, followed by North Carolina, Nebraska (2nd Congressional District), Georgia, Arizona, Missouri, and Montana.

Schweitzer vs. Generic Republican:

Republican: 253 EVs
Schweitzer: 217 EVs

The map weakens considerably for Schweitzer compared to Biden. In this scenario, the Republican candidate would only need to win two or three swing states out of seven, or just win Pennsylvania, in order to pass the 270 electoral vote threshold. Schweitzer would be a particularly weak candidate compared to other Democratic options. The GOP would be well-positioned to advance far into traditionally Democratic states.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

States where the vote will be under 55%   :

Illinois is going to trend Republican compared to 2004, which didn't have a home-state effect? Missouri is going to vote 55%+ with Clinton on the ballot when it didn't even do so with the hated Obama on there?

I don't buy it.

It may or may not reach 55% republican, but it's at least going to come quite close.

Missouri is trending republican. Clinton has little hope of really competing there, unless she is winning the election by more than 15 points. Missouri voted 3.8% to the right of the nation in 2000, 4.8% to the right of the nation in 2004, voted 7.3% to the right of the nation in 2008, and voted 13.3% to the right of the nation in 2012. Even when factoring in the fact that the trend from '12 to '16 is likely to be smaller than that from '08 to '12 due to Clinton's higher favorability ratings, and, quite frankly, the fact that she is white, MO should still be about 16% or so to the right of the nation in 2016. It's not a realistic target for Clinton, and she should focus her southern dollars elsewhere.

Here's an example of what sort of margins you should expect in Missouri.

Clinton wins popular vote by 3 points nationwide = she loses by 13 points in MO (56-43-1)
Clinton wins popular vote by 6 points nationwide = she loses by 10 points in MO (55-45)
Clinton wins popular vote by 9 points nationwide = she loses by 7 points in MO (53-46-1)

[IceSpear]

States where the vote will be under 55%   :

Illinois is going to trend Republican compared to 2004, which didn't have a home-state effect? Missouri is going to vote 55%+ with Clinton on the ballot when it didn't even do so with the hated Obama on there?

I don't buy it.

It may or may not reach 55% republican, but it's at least going to come quite close.

Missouri is trending republican. Clinton has little hope of really competing there, unless she is winning the election by more than 15 points. Missouri voted 3.8% to the right of the nation in 2000, 4.8% to the right of the nation in 2004, voted 7.3% to the right of the nation in 2008, and voted 13.3% to the right of the nation in 2012. Even when factoring in the fact that the trend from '12 to '16 is likely to be smaller than that from '08 to '12 due to Clinton's higher favorability ratings, and, quite frankly, the fact that she is white, MO should still be about 16% or so to the right of the nation in 2016. It's not a realistic target for Clinton, and she should focus her southern dollars elsewhere.

Here's an example of what sort of margins you should expect in Missouri.

Clinton wins popular vote by 3 points nationwide = she loses by 13 points in MO (56-43-1)
Clinton wins popular vote by 6 points nationwide = she loses by 10 points in MO (55-45)
Clinton wins popular vote by 9 points nationwide = she loses by 7 points in MO (53-46-1)

You seem to be extrapolating way too heavily here. Under this logic, Hillary would lose Arkansas and other Appalachian states by a larger margin than Obama did in 2012, which is ludicrous. She currently leads in Arkansas polls and is doing markedly better than Obama in every other state that was polled in Appalachia (such as WV and KY). Missouri has a lot of similarities to Arkansas (especially the Southeast region), and it is also anchored by two urban areas that will almost always keep it within single digits. I'd wager Hillary will almost certainly be leading (or at least within a few points) if someone bothered to poll Missouri. Unfortunately nobody will for a while since there's no interesting races there in 2014.