The next Vermonts and West Virginias

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A past swing is no indication of a future swing. I really wish you'd all remember that...

[DownWithTheLeft]

Corzine is single-handily turning NJ into a GOP state.  If Kean gets elected, which he will, the GOP will start a long and prosperous future that includes the election defeat of Sen. Lautenberg and the landslide victory for John Murphy in 2009.

Who beats Lautenberg in 08?  Idk, probably Bob Franks might give it a run again.  But the problem w/NJ is we keep putting up the same stupid people like Forrester.  John Murphy and TKJ will turn the tide w/some fresh young faces.

[Reignman]

South Dakota and Connecticut?

[Smash255]

Corzine is single-handily turning NJ into a GOP state.  If Kean gets elected, which he will, the GOP will start a long and prosperous future that includes the election defeat of Sen. Lautenberg and the landslide victory for John Murphy in 2009.

Who beats Lautenberg in 08?  Idk, probably Bob Franks might give it a run again.  But the problem w/NJ is we keep putting up the same stupid people like Forrester.  John Murphy and TKJ will turn the tide w/some fresh young faces.

Corzine isn't turning the state GOP.  Corzine isn't liked no question, but the hate for Bush & the National GOP is stronger than the strong dislike for Corzine.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Corzine is single-handily turning NJ into a GOP state.  If Kean gets elected, which he will, the GOP will start a long and prosperous future that includes the election defeat of Sen. Lautenberg and the landslide victory for John Murphy in 2009.

Who beats Lautenberg in 08?  Idk, probably Bob Franks might give it a run again.  But the problem w/NJ is we keep putting up the same stupid people like Forrester.  John Murphy and TKJ will turn the tide w/some fresh young faces.

Corzine isn't turning the state GOP.  Corzine isn't liked no question, but the hate for Bush & the National GOP is stronger than the strong dislike for Corzine.

The GOP has a bounty of great candidates and the Democrats don't.  There are no up and coming stars for them while the GOP has TKJ, Chris Cristie, John Murphy, Steve Lonegan, and more.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Here's my list of Top 5:

Hard Rep:
NJ (corruption and tiring of machine)
FL (various reasons)
HI (amount of military people)
PA (various reasons)
OR (various reasons)
MI (tie for 5th)

Hard Dem:
NV (Las Vegas area growth)
AZ (various reasons)
CO (various reasons)
OH (corruption)
NM

[Alcon]

Here's my list of Top 5:

Hard Rep:
NJ (corruption and tiring of machine)
FL (various reasons)
HI (amount of military people)
PA (various reasons)
OR (various reasons)
MI (tie for 5th)

Why would Hawai'i move hard right due to lots of military people when the number doesn't realyl look to change that substantially?  I'd also love to hear your reasoning on Oregon.  I've seen lots of Oregon predictions like that, but none of them really satisfy me.  Same deal with New Mexico to the Dems.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Before I issue any comments, here's my map of changes

Light Blue= moving slightly Republican
means that it is Republican and moving more so that way, or seem like in the future they will become so

DarK Blue= sharp right turn
means it is drastically moving toward or solidifing for the GOP

Light Red= moving slowly Dem
same as light blue

Dark Red= sharp left turn
same as dark blue

[Smash255]

Before I issue any comments, here's my map of changes

Light Blue= moving slightly Republican
means that it is Republican and moving more so that way, or seem like in the future they will become so

DarK Blue= sharp right turn
means it is drastically moving toward or solidifing for the GOP

Light Red= moving slowly Dem
same as light blue

Dark Red= sharp left turn
same as dark blue

The GOP's turning into the part of hard social conservatism destroys any chance of CT or NJ moving rightward.  Thats a big reason why both states move towards the Dems in the first place.....

[DownWithTheLeft]

Before I issue any comments, here's my map of changes

Light Blue= moving slightly Republican
means that it is Republican and moving more so that way, or seem like in the future they will become so

DarK Blue= sharp right turn
means it is drastically moving toward or solidifing for the GOP

Light Red= moving slowly Dem
same as light blue

Dark Red= sharp left turn
same as dark blue

The GOP's turning into the part of hard social conservatism destroys any chance of CT or NJ moving rightward.  Thats a big reason why both states move towards the Dems in the first place.....

NJ is fed up w/the corruption, just the same as OH moving a little bit to the left, neither have changed their social views, they just are fed w/their state parties.  CT, they still have 3 out of 5 GOP representative, and I don't buy into the hype of them losing that when a Dem insider poll only has them up 1 on Chris Shays.  I think it is a state that will state liberal, but less liberal.  A lot like AZ like I don't see voting Democratic anytime soon, but certainly much less Republican.

[Smash255]

Before I issue any comments, here's my map of changes

Light Blue= moving slightly Republican
means that it is Republican and moving more so that way, or seem like in the future they will become so

DarK Blue= sharp right turn
means it is drastically moving toward or solidifing for the GOP

Light Red= moving slowly Dem
same as light blue

Dark Red= sharp left turn
same as dark blue

The GOP's turning into the part of hard social conservatism destroys any chance of CT or NJ moving rightward.  Thats a big reason why both states move towards the Dems in the first place.....

NJ is fed up w/the corruption, just the same as OH moving a little bit to the left, neither have changed their social views, they just are fed w/their state parties.  CT, they still have 3 out of 5 GOP representative, and I don't buy into the hype of them losing that when a Dem insider poll only has them up 1 on Chris Shays.  I think it is a state that will state liberal, but less liberal.  A lot like AZ like I don't see voting Democratic anytime soon, but certainly much less Republican.

Your confusing the National GOp with presidential candidates here along with other officeholders. 

Keep in mind this thread is for trends on the Presidential level,

Those who would win the GOP Primary are going to be conservative Republicans.  Conservative repubilcans are just not going to do much of anything in this part of the country.  The reaso CT (for now anyway) has 3 of 5 Republicans  in Congress is that they are all pretty much liberal republicans, who are alL WELL to the left of the National GOP,  The type of republican that can win in these areas aren't the type of Republican that is likely to get the GOP nomination.

[Jacobtm]

Colorado will become increasingly Democratic, I do believe.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Light blue/red- Think will happen, but it may not happen.
Red(Darker the light, lighter then dark)- Likely will happen.
Dark Red/Blue- Will happen.

[auburntiger]

I think every state goes in cycles, as parties change depending on the issues

For example, VA was DEm back in the 20's -40's and it started voting Republican from the 1960's on, and now it's beginning to drift more towards the Dems.

MN is another example - Rep during the early 20th century, DEM in the 30's 40's and still is today, but trending REP but not as obvious as VA trending DEM

WI same way

MI may as it was closer in '04 than we thought.

[Nym90]

The idea that Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, or Minnesota are trending Republican is just plain wrong.

Kerry actually won both WI and MN by more than Gore did (despite of course doing worse nationally) and even in Michigan the swing towards Bush was less than the national average. Likewise Iowa, though it was one of only two states to flip from Gore to Bush, had a swing towards Bush of less than the national average, and actually went from being ever so slightly Republican leaning in 2000 to ever so slightly Democratic leaning in 2004.

Now, obviously one election does not a trend make (or stop perhaps), but I see no evidence in other statewide races that the Midwest is becoming more Republican.

[Gustaf]

Minnesota definitely has trended Republican in the 90s compared to the 70s and 80s. Here is a table where I have subtracted the percent margin for the Republican presidential candidate in Minnesota from the same candidate's national margin (i.e. the higher the below number, the more Democratic Minnesota was)

2004 5,94%
2000 1,9%
1996 7,54%
1992 6,07%
1988 14,73%
1984 18,39%
1980 13,68%
1976 10,82%
1972 17,64%

[Filuwaúrdjan]

O/c at has to be remembered that in 1976, 1980 and 1984 someone from Minnesota was on the Democratic ticket, while in 1972 the Democratic candidate had quite a lot of appeal in the rural areas bordering his home state:



But other factors are at work; changes in agricultural employment and the growth of Twin Cities suburbia have both hurt the DFL, and o/c the national Democrats have a much smaller appeal (when you adjust for national averages and so on) to working class voters than they did in the 1980's.