States where statewide candidates must win the white vote to win the election?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Is there a map of this that exists somewhere?  I know this applies particularly to northern New England and other very heavily white states, but I'm curious about certain others.

Thanks.

EDIT: Actually, I think I recall seeing a map somewhere on this forum of the percentage of the white vote a Democrat needs to win a certain state, so that would be helpful, too.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The answer is actually none of them. Like you'd think New Hampshire would be one but Ayotte no doubt won the white vote. Tim Johnson obviously,lost the white vote in South Dakota in 2002.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The answer is actually none of them. Like you'd think New Hampshire would be one but Ayotte no doubt won the white vote. Tim Johnson obviously,lost the white vote in South Dakota in 2002.

What about Maine, Vermont, and Iowa?  I'm pretty sure that winning the white vote is on par with winning the Maine vote, and obviously the white vote would have been close enough in order for Maine to split its votes like it did last year.

Whites certainly voted for Sanders as they did for Phil Scott.  Vermont is one of the like, three whitest states in the country if I am not mistaken.  Iowa is not far behind - where Obama won the white vote twice.

[RFayette]

Technically, isn't the answer to this question only precincts where there are literally 0 nonwhite voters?  Because if you had a hypothetical population of 10,000 white and one nonwhite, then someone who splits the white vote can still win with the one nonwhite vote.  If we require strict wins, then all you need is 3 nonwhites:  10,000 whites split 4,999 for one candidate, 5,001 for the other, but the former gets the last 3 and thus wins. 

So essentially, the only places where you can find less than 3 nonwhites are at the precinct level, AFAIK.  At the state level, the math just doesn't work.  And given how Democratic-leaning minorities are, a narrow loss among whites can be overcome with minority votes even in very white states.  It's not really feasible to model the scenario unless you have whites voting to the left of the nonwhites in the locale, which is essentially only the case in places like Hawaii.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Technically, isn't the answer to this question only precincts where there are literally 0 nonwhite voters?  Because if you had a hypothetical population of 10,000 white and one nonwhite, then someone who splits the white vote can still win with the one nonwhite vote.  If we require strict wins, then all you need is 3 nonwhites:  10,000 whites split 4,999 for one candidate, 5,001 for the other, but the former gets the last 3 and thus wins. 

So essentially, the only places where you can find less than 3 nonwhites are at the precinct level, AFAIK.  At the state level, the math just doesn't work.  And given how Democratic-leaning minorities are, a narrow loss among whites can be overcome with minority votes even in very white states.  It's not really feasible to model the scenario unless you have whites voting to the left of the nonwhites in the locale, which is essentially only the case in places like Hawaii.

Eh, I suppose in states where third party candidates are able to obtain a sizable portion of the vote, this isn't a good model.  Nor is it in races where the winner is decided by just a handful of votes.

I guess a better question would be, how much of the white vote does the Democratic candidate need in each state in order to have a realistic chance of winning?  That's more useful and relevant for states with shifting demographics.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The answer is actually none of them. Like you'd think New Hampshire would be one but Ayotte no doubt won the white vote. Tim Johnson obviously,lost the white vote in South Dakota in 2002.

What about Maine, Vermont, and Iowa?  I'm pretty sure that winning the white vote is on par with winning the Maine vote, and obviously the white vote would have been close enough in order for Maine to split its votes like it did last year.

Whites certainly voted for Sanders as they did for Phil Scott.  Vermont is one of the like, three whitest states in the country if I am not mistaken.  Iowa is not far behind - where Obama won the white vote twice.

Gore almost certainly lost the white vote in Iowa, despite winning it. Iowa was only about 6% non-white in 2000, but still that well more than accounts for his margin of victory. It's almost 9% non-white today. Vermont is now about 94% white, so about as white as Iowa in 2000. Maine is probably the whitest state in the country and is something like 96.5% white, but still if there was a razor thin election...

So there really isn't one. Although your latter question, what percentage of the white vote does the Democratic candidate need to win, is a pretty good one.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

The answer is actually none of them. Like you'd think New Hampshire would be one but Ayotte no doubt won the white vote. Tim Johnson obviously,lost the white vote in South Dakota in 2002.

What about Maine, Vermont, and Iowa?  I'm pretty sure that winning the white vote is on par with winning the Maine vote, and obviously the white vote would have been close enough in order for Maine to split its votes like it did last year.

Whites certainly voted for Sanders as they did for Phil Scott.  Vermont is one of the like, three whitest states in the country if I am not mistaken.  Iowa is not far behind - where Obama won the white vote twice.

In the 2016 presidential election, Clinton won whites, who made up ~93% of the electorate, by ~1%, according to CNN exit polling. She won overall by ~3%, so it seems that she could have just barely lost the white vote and still have won.