Connecticut State could be the swing state in Election 2016.

[Camaro33]

Dude this isn't happening. I live in Fairfield county in one of the wealthiest Republican towns in Connecticut. Our town has a democrat mayor who just got reelected in 2015 and every entitled white kid who lives here is voting Bernie or Hillary. A presidential year Republican CT victory is not feasible in this state until there is a major realignment of issues and voter coalition demographics.

[Cubby]

"Connecticut State"?  As opposed to Connecticut City or Connecticut, DC?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That annoyed me so much I didn't even read the actual post. It's like he's trying to prove he's human and not a robot. "Take me to your human state of Connecticut".

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

"Connecticut State"?  As opposed to Connecticut City or Connecticut, DC?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That annoyed me so much I didn't even read the actual post. It's like he's trying to prove he's human and not a robot. "Take me to your human state of Connecticut".

That is fantastic.

[pbrower2a]

Swing states, 2000-2012... meaning states and districts that have gone both ways:

CO
FL
IN
IA
NE-02
NV
NH
NM
NC
OH
VA

[Mr. Illini]

Connecticut will probably become Republican or swing in the future, but 2016 is too early. I see a definite trend though. I hope its plausible in 2016, but seriously doubt it. Its only plausible in an Indiana 2008 scenario, where the GOP massively spends and visits while the Democrats don't take it seriously enough.

Absolutely no reason that this would be the case. Wealthy white suburbans are not becoming more Republican (and especially not so in New England) and the Hispanic population in Connecticut is only increasing.

Between the increasingly liberal New England suburban demographic and an increasingly diverse state, Connecticut is instead a prime target to become even more solidly Democratic.

[Horsemask]

"Connecticut State"?  As opposed to Connecticut City or Connecticut, DC?

Exactly what I was thinking

[EliteLX]

If CT starts heading GOP then it's red nation raising, and FL VA and OH are as safe bets as Arizona and Mississippi.

This isn't reasonable.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

At this rate, maybe everything will be put in play. Well this "put in play" trend get all the way to DC? Stay tuned!

Well, to be fair, he didn't quite say that. He just said 57% of the white vote. Putting aside the merits of that as to whether that is the right number to swing the state based  on reasonable assumptions, in certain places, that would be quite the tectonic plate shift. Imagine the size of the swing, if 57% of the white voters in Manhattan voted Pub? And the Pubs would win Oregon and Washington going away. In fact, about all New England would be nailed down. Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa would be near Pub landslides. So many possibilities, so little time. The Dems would still be safe in Hawaii, Maryland, DC, NY, and Illinois however.

If the GOP took 57% of the white vote in Illinois, it would no longer be a Safe D state (Dems would win but only by a few percentage points).

[Nyvin]

Because.....Terrorism and Immigration Factors!!!!

[136or142]

Given the unpopularity of the rather left leaning governor there, Dan(nel) Malloy, I suppose if Bernie Sanders somehow managed to become the Democratic nominee that the state could be much closer than normal.  (Although I gather a lot of far left Democrats don't care all that much for Malloy either.)

I don't think his unpopularity (with Jindal leaving as governor, as of the last survey Malloy is now the second most unpopular governor in the country ahead of only Sam Brownback)  would hurt Hillary Rodham Clinton all that much though.

Also, there doesn't seem to be much evidence that unpopular governors of one party have any real effect on Presidential candidates of the same party.

[Virginiá]

Also, there doesn't seem to be much evidence that unpopular governors of one party have any real effect on Presidential candidates of the same party.

Personally, I don't think they do. Jon Corzine didn't hurt Obama in New Jersey, Gray Davis didn't hurt Kerry in California, Rod Blagojevich didn't seem to hurt Obama in Illinois in 2012, either (though that was like 3 years earlier). Meanwhile, Matt Blunt's very low approval ratings in 2008 didn't help Obama in Missouri, even in what was considered a bellwether state up until that point.

It's more like an unpopular president can severely hurt his party all the way downballot rather than the other way around, as we have seen with Nixon in 76' and 78' (whose terrible affect on the GOP was seen at almost every level in almost every state for years after), Bush in 2006 and Obama in 2010/2014.

This Connecticut idea is rubbish (as usual StatesPoll does not disappoint!). The GOP has lost big there ever since 1992, with progressively bigger losses over time. The best they could possibly hope to do is trim the Democratic margins down from a landslide to a comfortable win.

[Mr. Reactionary]

This reminds me of the Hillary parody troll last year who said Nebraska was a tossup because if Hillary won most women and black turnout was really high (in Nebraska), it could carry her over.

[This account no longer in use.]

Bumped for relevance.

[beaver2.0]

No.

[This account no longer in use.]

Yes.

[Virginiá]

[Boston Bread]

I think it's a good thing if Trump campaigns in CT, Clinton in TX, even if they won't win. There hasn't really been a truly national campaign this century.