New Red and Blue "Walls"?

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

We've all heard about the so-called "blue wall" in the Midwest crumbling as Trump won Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. We've also seen traditionally Republican states, like Arizona and Georgia, fall into a category of potentially competitive states.

So, my question is: for the near future, what will the blue and red "walls" look like in presidential elections?

My personal opinion:

Grey = most competitive states, not part of either party's wall (AZ, OH, IA, FL, and NC lean right,
            while MI, WI, PA, and NH lean left)
30% (lightest) shade = barely considered part of "the wall", could feasibly be competitive or flip in
                                   larger losses
60% (medium) shade = considered part of "the wall" but not quite certain, won't flip without a
                                    landslide loss or the opposition party running a candidate from that state
90% (darkest) shade = the most reliable part of the wall, will not flip barring extreme circumstances

[twenty42]

I'd give Iowa, Ohio, and NC a light blue shade.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

I'd give Iowa, Ohio, and NC a light blue shade.

I was very tempted to put Ohio as light blue. I wouldn't go so far for Iowa - Obama won by over 5% there just four years ago, so I would wait for another large Democratic loss in Iowa before I remove it from the "most competitive" category. NC has also trending to the left consecutively multiple times over the last couple elections, so even though it is Tilt R as of now, in 8 or so years I could see it having a R+1 or even PVI.

[I’m not Stu]

I think this is more likely. Poliquin isn't polling well in ME-02 and Trump also might not currently be polling there very well.

[AN63093]

I always thought the "walls" analysis (I use the word 'analysis' here loosely) was very silly.  Not because safe states don't exist, but because people were talking about these walls as if they were much, much larger than they actually were.  For example, I saw lots of maps here a few years ago that had states like WI and PA in the "blue wall," even though anyone that actually followed elections and trends closely knew that the right set of circumstances could flip those states, even if they hadn't voted R in a long time.

Along those lines then, what states do I think are truly un-flippable?  Maybe something like this:

Lighter shaded states would only flip in <5% of outcomes.. there'd have to be some type of a collapse of that party's campaign.

[I’m not Stu]

I always thought the "walls" analysis (I use the word 'analysis' here loosely) was very silly.  Not because safe states don't exist, but because people were talking about these walls as if they were much, much larger than they actually were.  For example, I saw lots of maps here a few years ago that had states like WI and PA in the "blue wall," even though anyone that actually followed elections and trends closely knew that the right set of circumstances could flip those states, even if they hadn't voted R in a long time.

Along those lines then, what states do I think are truly un-flippable?  Maybe something like this:

Lighter shaded states would only flip in <5% of outcomes.. there'd have to be some type of a collapse of that party's campaign.

Un-flippable? Maybe this map. Texas rapidly trended D. Alaska is trending D. South Carolina might trend D, considering the 2017 SC-05 (SC-05 PVI is close to the statewide PVI) race was competitive.

[AN63093]

In a cycle or two, I could see that map.  I didn't have them lighter shaded because I don't think we're quite there yet.

By 2024 or 2032 though, sure.

[TML]

I would downgrade Montana by one shade (from dark to medium), since recent history has shown that:

-If the national result is a close Republican win (2000, 2004, 2016), the Republican candidate usually wins MT by 20+%;
-If the national result is a close-to-modest Democratic win (2012), the Republican candidate wins MT by 10-20%;
-If the national result is a Democratic landslide (1992, 1996, 2008), the Democratic candidate either wins MT outright or comes within 5% of winning it.

[I’m not Stu]

I would downgrade Montana by one shade (from dark to medium), since recent history has shown that:

-If the national result is a close Republican win (2000, 2004, 2016), the Republican candidate usually wins MT by 20+%;
-If the national result is a close-to-modest Democratic win (2012), the Republican candidate wins MT by 10-20%;
-If the national result is a Democratic landslide (1992, 1996, 2008), the Democratic candidate either wins MT outright or comes within 5% of winning it.

[MT Treasurer]

220
204

114

[I’m not Stu]

Revised.

[Burke Bro]

I've stuck to this map for awhile, and will continue to until I get my hands on some good 2020 polls.

[GGSETTER]

I always thought the "walls" analysis (I use the word 'analysis' here loosely) was very silly.  Not because safe states don't exist, but because people were talking about these walls as if they were much, much larger than they actually were.  For example, I saw lots of maps here a few years ago that had states like WI and PA in the "blue wall," even though anyone that actually followed elections and trends closely knew that the right set of circumstances could flip those states, even if they hadn't voted R in a long time.

Along those lines then, what states do I think are truly un-flippable?  Maybe something like this:

Lighter shaded states would only flip in <5% of outcomes.. there'd have to be some type of a collapse of that party's campaign.

Un-flippable? Maybe this map. Texas rapidly trended D. Alaska is trending D. South Carolina might trend D, considering the 2017 SC-05 (SC-05 PVI is close to the statewide PVI) race was competitive.

Except Texas is not trending Democrat. One election does not make a trend and Trump was a poor fit for the state. The Democrats didn't even pick up any state or federal seats in the state in 2016. Also why in the world would you think South Carolina is becoming a Democrat Stste?

[Pericles]

Trump's approval ratings are terrible in Texas. Maybe 2016 was a one-off, or maybe it is just the tip of the iceberg and Texas will be competitive in 2020 or 2024.

[Pericles]

[100% pro-life no matter what]

By definition, in a 'wall', there shouldn't be any lightly-colored states, but I think the idea is largely a myth anyway.  If I had to make one, it would look like this:

[wxtransit]

I think that that the 2016 election results have not yet proven themselves to be trends yet. This was only one election, and for example, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan may be trending Republican, or, as far as we know, these states could still be part of the blue "wall" in some shape or form and in 2020 or 2024 they will vote Democratic again. (By the way, Utah really didn't trend Democratic, it really trended towards McMullin, which arguably is part of the conservative faction). With that being said:

216 Rep
198 Dem
124 Tossup

So my definition of a wall would be: