Pennsylvania in 2016

[Kingpoleon]

It trends R slightly compared to the nation if Kasich or Trump is the nominee.

[Nyvin]

PVI Numbers for the last 4 elections. States trend upward, backward, sideways, down ways, and many other hidden factors that make trends hard to predict, but these are the raw numbers.

Year       PVI        % Change from Previous Election

2000:  +2.22D    Base Year
2004:  +2.66D    +0.44%D
2008:  +1.61D    +1.05%R
2012:  +0.95D    +0.66%R

Line of Best Fit predictor shows it at about +0.5D for 2016. Again, trends are very hard to predict and can speed up, stop, or reverse. Trends on a graph tend to look like a stock market, but you can get a tiny idea by looking at the numbers. Hope this data helps.

I've went over this about a dozen times on this forum already...but what the PVI of Pennsylvania is actually showing is that the "Nation" trended left faster than Pennsylvania did.

If there was any movement in the state of Pennsylvania itself toward the Republicans you'd see their vote numbers going up...you don't...the Republicans haven't match their 2004 numbers in either the 2008 election or the 2012 election.

Besides...what does PVI really even matter anyway?   Pennsylvania could become an R+2 state if the Nation votes Democratic enough...and the Republicans would STILL be losing it.

[Kempros]

This nation does not work on a one party system, and the day it does will be the day when there is no USA. Party control will always tend to roughly equal out as parties adjust their platforms, and PVI does matter since it gives an idea on how a state is changing in many aspects. Ex. 1984 New York had a PVI of D even though it voted R, but it told us that it would vote D as soon as the share of the vote would become near equal. What I have noticed most was not the "liberalization" of the country, but the insane polarization between states and the division of the parties to basically hate one another. 

On behalf of NH, if you throw a moderate candidate in there, I would expect the PVI to change a lot since NH has a large moderate voter bloc.

[Young Conservative]

PA will vote right on the national average, for whichever party wins.

no it won't lol

Why not? PA was within 1% in 2012.

It was one point left of the nation as a whole actually so about 5 points...

[Kingpoleon]

I think Spark498 is a perfect example of how current Atlasian politics may prove helpful in observing the shape of the future. Spark seems like a classic PA swing voter slowly heading towards Kasich, Brown, Sandoval, and Baker like Republican moderates.

[Mallow]

PVI Numbers for the last 4 elections. States trend upward, backward, sideways, down ways, and many other hidden factors that make trends hard to predict, but these are the raw numbers.

Year       PVI        % Change from Previous Election

2000:  +2.22D    Base Year
2004:  +2.66D    +0.44%D
2008:  +1.61D    +1.05%R
2012:  +0.95D    +0.66%R

Line of Best Fit predictor shows it at about +0.5D for 2016. Again, trends are very hard to predict and can speed up, stop, or reverse. Trends on a graph tend to look like a stock market, but you can get a tiny idea by looking at the numbers. Hope this data helps.

I was gonna ask why these numbers were different than the ones I have, but then I realized it must be because my numbers ignore third party and other voters. The national-popular-vote-corrected margins I have are as follows...
1996: D+0.69
2000: D+3.66
2004: D+4.97
2008: D+3.06
2012: D+1.52

In any case, the result gives a similar picture to yours--that is, that there is no clear and stable trend. The trends since 1980 would suggest a D+1.65 election in 2016, and the trends since 2000 would give D+1.22. In either case, I'd expect PA to vote about 1-2 points to the left of the national average in 2016.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Looks to me like in open years PA is D + 3 or so, with a +/- 1.5 or so against the incumbent party. I would expect to see PA at D+2-3 in November.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

PVI Numbers for the last 4 elections. States trend upward, backward, sideways, down ways, and many other hidden factors that make trends hard to predict, but these are the raw numbers.

Year       PVI        % Change from Previous Election

2000:  +2.22D    Base Year
2004:  +2.66D    +0.44%D
2008:  +1.61D    +1.05%R
2012:  +0.95D    +0.66%R

Line of Best Fit predictor shows it at about +0.5D for 2016. Again, trends are very hard to predict and can speed up, stop, or reverse. Trends on a graph tend to look like a stock market, but you can get a tiny idea by looking at the numbers. Hope this data helps.

I was gonna ask why these numbers were different than the ones I have, but then I realized it must be because my numbers ignore third party and other voters. The national-popular-vote-corrected margins I have are as follows...
1996: D+0.69
2000: D+3.66
2004: D+4.97
2008: D+3.06
2012: D+1.52

In any case, the result gives a similar picture to yours--that is, that there is no clear and stable trend. The trends since 1980 would suggest a D+1.65 election in 2016, and the trends since 2000 would give D+1.22. In either case, I'd expect PA to vote about 1-2 points to the left of the national average in 2016.

The big difference is that some people inadvertently double all PVIs.  The way Cook calculates it, 51-49 in a 50-50 election is D/R+1, not +2, for instance.

[Mallow]

PVI Numbers for the last 4 elections. States trend upward, backward, sideways, down ways, and many other hidden factors that make trends hard to predict, but these are the raw numbers.

Year       PVI        % Change from Previous Election

2000:  +2.22D    Base Year
2004:  +2.66D    +0.44%D
2008:  +1.61D    +1.05%R
2012:  +0.95D    +0.66%R

Line of Best Fit predictor shows it at about +0.5D for 2016. Again, trends are very hard to predict and can speed up, stop, or reverse. Trends on a graph tend to look like a stock market, but you can get a tiny idea by looking at the numbers. Hope this data helps.

I was gonna ask why these numbers were different than the ones I have, but then I realized it must be because my numbers ignore third party and other voters. The national-popular-vote-corrected margins I have are as follows...
1996: D+0.69
2000: D+3.66
2004: D+4.97
2008: D+3.06
2012: D+1.52

In any case, the result gives a similar picture to yours--that is, that there is no clear and stable trend. The trends since 1980 would suggest a D+1.65 election in 2016, and the trends since 2000 would give D+1.22. In either case, I'd expect PA to vote about 1-2 points to the left of the national average in 2016.

The big difference is that some people inadvertently double all PVIs.  The way Cook calculates it, 51-49 in a 50-50 election is D/R+1, not +2, for instance.

They're not exactly doubled, though. In any case, I'm not using PVI, I'm using margin.

[CapoteMonster]

Democratic voter registration is still very high in the state. It's going to be hard since their's not sign of the state's voter base trending R.

[Kingpoleon]

Because there's literally no evidence to suggest that it will?

It's funny because regardless, PA has gone Democratic for an entire generation now. Democrats scored 10%+ margin in 2008, which shows they have a high ceiling there, yet Republicans can't even get 1 win in something like 25 years. Not to mention 1988's GOP winning margin was < 2%

This is the kind of state where unless there are some substantial, blatantly obvious pro-GOP trends, that it is best to assume it will just go Democratic but there is at least a marginal chance it won't. With Trump on the ticket, they would be lucky if their US House delegation didn't get eviscerated as they lose the state at the presidential level.

It's a stunningly inelastic state. Unless you have literally the perfect Republican candidate for PA and the absolute worst Democratic candidate for PA, it's not going Republican anytime in the next few cycles.

Onorato and Sestak were awful candidates? One lost by ten points to Corbett, and the other by two points to Toomey.

[Virginiá]

Onorato and Sestak were awful candidates? One lost by ten points to Corbett, and the other by two points to Toomey.

I imagine he was talking about presidential races (I know I was). All things considered, Sestak's performance in 2010 was respectable considering how massive the 2010 wave was. He barely lost during a year where Democrats had a nuke dropped on their majorities across the country.

At any rate, the dynamics between state and presidential races is different.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Even if it won't flip, the GOP have to make a play for PA. They just have to. The electoral maths is ugly otherwise.

[JohnathanOHughes]

2016 Presidential Election

The Great State of Pennsylvania will go Hillary Clinton for one reasons, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh make up most of the population of Pennsylvania, and they are overwhelmingly Democratic, which means they are overwhelmingly Clinton, however its up to the voter turnout to decide, but I predict that voter turnout will be huge in this election.

[sg0508]

2016 Presidential Election

The Great State of Pennsylvania will go Hillary Clinton for one reasons, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh make up most of the population of Pennsylvania, and they are overwhelmingly Democratic, which means they are overwhelmingly Clinton, however its up to the voter turnout to decide, but I predict that voter turnout will be huge in this election.

The biggest disappointment for Republicans in PA has to be that Pittsburgh has been weakening for Democrats over the past decade and the GOP still cannot win there in a presidential year...they won't this year either.

[Devils30]

If that NBC poll is anything close to accurate, Trump will get destroyed in eastern PA.