States that are NOT up for grabs in '08, under any circumstances.

[Jacobtm]

2000 and 2004 were an odd pair of elections in that only 3 states voted differently in '04 than they did in '00. In most elections, especially ones where a president isn't running for re-elections, many dozens of states are likely to vote for a different party than they did in the previous election.

Before '00 and '04, the least number of states to switch parties in sucessive elections in recent history was 5, when WV, DE, RI, GA and HI all switched from voting Democrat in '80 to Republican in '84. Before that, in '52 and '56, only 4 states changed their minds about Eisenhower. But both of these situations were re-election campaigns.

So, it would be incredible for the results for 2008 to be very simmilar to 2004 and 2000. In my opinion, one party will clearly win this election, taking far more than just those thought to be "swing states" in the last 2 elections. I feel like once this contest gets underway, NM, CO, NV, IA, MN, WI, PA, OH and FL will hardly be the only states that are up for grabs. I see no reason why a strong Democrat couldn't carry states like VA and NC, nor why a strong Republican couldn't easily wrap up PA, FL and OH, and then spend his time trying to make inroads into WA, WI, MN, NH and MN.

However, the Democrats have much more ability to gain states. Since Democratic support is so highly concentrated in so few states, it'd be rather hard for Republicans to win even 10 states that the Dems won in '04, considering that the Dems only won 19 states plus D.C. in '04.

I feel like the states that are nearly 100% not up for grabs are:
Republican:
ID
WY
UT
ND
SD
NE
KS
SC
GA
MS
AL

Democratic:
NY
MA
VT
CT
RI
MD
DE

Of course, it would take a marvelous campaign from the Dems to win TX, but remember: in every election but one since 1980, there's been some guy named George Bush from Texas on the Republican Presidential Ticket. The only time their wasn't, 1996, the Republican got under 50% in Texas. Imagine Mitt Romney vs. John Edwards. Texas could be in play. Furthermore, the Republican Governor of Texas was re-elected with less than 40% of the vote, and recent action by congressional Republicans has turned many Hispanics newly against the republicans since 2004. Not that this means Texas will in any way be an easy Dem target, but with the right candidates and good fortune, it's possible, if not likely.

The Republicans would also have a terrible time convincing over 1 million californians to change their mind about voting Republican, but they recently re-elected their Republican Governor. With his campaigning on the behalf of someone like Rudy Giuliani, and with a poorly run Dem campaign, it's concievably that the Republicans could win back their old stomping grounds of CA.

[poughies]

Every state is up for grabs, at least until they pick the nominees.

Just my humble opinion.

[Jacobtm]

Every state is up for grabs, at least until they pick the nominees.

Just my humble opinion.

What combination of candidates could deliver Massachusetts to the Republicans?

[Verily]

Every state is up for grabs, at least until they pick the nominees.

Just my humble opinion.

What combination of candidates could deliver Massachusetts to the Republicans?

Bill Weld/Lincoln Chafee v Brad Henry/Roy Barnes.

(In other words, not a realistic ticket, but theoretically possible.)

[Tender Branson]

There´s a CT poll from Quinnipiac with Giuliani ahead and we don´t know anything about DE so far, a state that was quite close in 2004. But I agree with the other states you listed.

[Verily]

There´s a CT poll from Quinnipiac with Giuliani ahead and we don´t know anything about DE so far, a state that was quite close in 2004. But I agree with the other states you listed.

The CT poll is ancient, from January or something.

[Tender Branson]

There´s a CT poll from Quinnipiac with Giuliani ahead and we don´t know anything about DE so far, a state that was quite close in 2004. But I agree with the other states you listed.

The CT poll is ancient, from January or something.

From May, but I guess you think Giuliani would lose CT no matter what. I also think that this was her low point and that Clinton will increase her lead to 3-5% in the next CT poll (which has to be out soon) and will win by 10% on Election day.

[Verily]

There´s a CT poll from Quinnipiac with Giuliani ahead and we don´t know anything about DE so far, a state that was quite close in 2004. But I agree with the other states you listed.

The CT poll is ancient, from January or something.

From May, but I guess you think Giuliani would lose CT no matter what. I also think that this was her low point and that Clinton will increase her lead to 3-5% in the next CT poll (which has to be out soon) and will win by 10% on Election day.

Not "no matter what", but it's very, very, very unlikely against Clinton. I could see him winning it against Edwards, as I've said before, and he has a very outside chance against Obama there. If we go into all theoretical match-ups, we get races like Giuliani v Kucinich where he'd win CT easily.

[poughies]

something like a Giuliani-Edwards..... could open states up to either side.....

[Eraserhead]

Every state is up for grabs, at least until they pick the nominees.

Just my humble opinion.

I actually agree with you for the most part but some states (like Utah) are pretty much set in stone.

[HardRCafé]

There´s a CT poll from Quinnipiac with Giuliani ahead and we don´t know anything about DE so far, a state that was quite close in 2004. But I agree with the other states you listed.

Excellent post.  You read my mind.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Mississippi, and  Alabama have 0 chance of voting democratic.

Massachusetts, DC, Rhode Island, and Vermont have 0 chance of voting republican.

[HappyWarrior]

MD would never go Republican either.

[WalterMitty]

very few states are locks at this point, especially if you say 'under ANY circumstances'

id say democrat=vermont, ri, ma, ny, dc

republican=ut, id, ne, ks, ok, ms, al, sc

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Let me make the edits where I feel necessary, and then follow up with a bit of explanation:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First, on the Democratic state side, I feel you can't absolutely rule out New York, if only because Rudy has the "home state advantage" there.  Against Clinton, sure, New York is Safe D, but if Obama, Edwards, or Richardson get the nod, a stronger-than-expected performance in NYC (at least the Staten Island and Queens parts) could put a couple beads of sweat on Democrats' faces.

Connecticut—yeah, this is equatable to New Jersey.  It's a state that prefers moderates (and will easily elect liberals, but not conservatives), and there are a lot of NYC commuters along the southern coast.

Delaware is another one of those states where the GOP isn't quite dead.  I don't expect Rudy to carry it, but I don't know how much of a lock it is.  It wasn't a Dem romp in 2004 on the Presidential or Gubernatorial side.

My only addition is Illinois—it's just too far gone for the GOP to win, even in the most optimistic of national scenarios.  To carry it, Rudy would need to win nationally by—what?—ten points?

On the Safe GOP side, I've crossed out South Dakota, Kansas, and the not-so-deep South.  SD is a plains state that is winnable in a Dem landslide (which I cannot rule out for 2008).  Kansas is looking more fertile to Democrats—still a massive longshot—but it could still slip into the Democratic column in a perfect storm.  As for the not-so-deep-South, I mean...Clinton did win Georgia in 1992, so...I can't 100% rule it out.  A hard time winning it again to say the least, of course, but not impossible.

ON EDIT: Added Oklahoma to my safe GOP list.

[Wakie]

Every state is up for grabs, at least until they pick the nominees.

Just my humble opinion.

I tend to agree.  Of course it would take a Republican denouncing Mormons to lose Utah and a Democrat making a bluntly racist statement to lose Washington DC.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Every state is up for grabs, at least until they pick the nominees.

Just my humble opinion.

I tend to agree.  Of course it would take a Republican denouncing Mormons to lose Utah and a Democrat making a bluntly racist statement to lose Washington DC.

Washington DC is not a state. 

[Jacobtm]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Living in NY, knowing plenty of people who voted for Giuliani or liked what he did as mayor, knowing plenty of people who had voted Republican before Bush came into office, I know that there's no way for a Republican to win NY. People in my state have become tremendously biased against the Republican party. For the Republican to even get more than 40% here would probably mean that the Democratic candidate would lose the Electoral College.

If George Bush hadn't been the president for 8 years, it'd be possible, but still unlikely, for the Republican to win. But even Dukakis won NY. Kerry won almost 60% here. After a second term in which George Bush has cemented negative feelings towards Republicans, there's no chance for a Republican of any sort in NY this year. Even if the Republican says 100% of the right things, has no slip-ups, and espouses beliefs that New Yorkers like, they'll just think he's lying.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dunno how i missed Illinois. Though this further illustrates my point about NY. Kerry carried IL by 10%; he carried NY by 18%. NY is far more biased against Republicans than even IL is.

[cp]

Safe Republican:

Idaho
Utah
Alabama
Mississippi

Safe Democrat:

DC
New York
Rhode Island
Illinois

Maybe I'm being too optimistic/pessimistic, but I think those are the only states where either party has permeated the political culture (on the Presidential level, at least) to ensure a victory regardless of the circumstances. The mountain west split for Clinton, as did the upper south, so all of those states could be in play. Equally, Republicans have had a knack for winning huge numbers of states in landslides, so it stands to reason they'd be able to surprise people in places like California, New Jersey, Maryland, and Maine.

The ones I struggled with are the midwest states: N/S Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. They tend to vote together and their politics work on a different wavelength than on the coasts or in the south. It's hard to imagine a Democrat winning North Dakota or a Republican losing Texas, but it's happened before. As for 2008, it remains to be seen if such a switch is likely to occur. If it does, it's a Democratic landslide. If not, it's a photo-finish.

[agcatter]

Texas is absolutely positively locked down, slam dunk, 100% Hillary proof.  You'd have to be living in  lala land to think there is even a microscopic chance she carries the state under any circumstances.  That would be the exact equal to my saying a GOP nominee has any chance whatsoever of carrying Massachusetts.  Ronald Reagan has passed on.

Every now and then I hear Republicans with pie in the hopes of taking New Jersey.  Crazy stuff.  There are only about  10 states or so that both sides are going to spend any significant resources on.  I'd say Iowa, nevada, NM, Arkansas, Mo, Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, NH, Michigan.

Dems will probably spend some money in W Virginia initially and Republicans may throw some money into Oregon and Minn but as the election starts shaking out I suspect those funds get redirected to more realistic targets. 

I don't see much change of flipflops in any states outside the ones I listed.  Hillary is not going to carry Virginia and a Republican is not going to carry a Wahington.

Hillary very well might be elected president, but it it won't be by the landslide necessary to put other states in play.  With her negatives her ceiling is probably 51% under the very best of circumstances.

[Jacobtm]

Texas is absolutely positively locked down, slam dunk, 100% Hillary proof.  You'd have to be living in  lala land to think there is even a microscopic chance she carries the state under any circumstances.  That would be the exact equal to my saying a GOP nominee has any chance whatsoever of carrying Massachusetts.  Ronald Reagan has passed on.

Every now and then I hear Republicans with pie in the hopes of taking New Jersey.  Crazy stuff.  There are only about  10 states or so that both sides are going to spend any significant resources on.  I'd say Iowa, nevada, NM, Arkansas, Mo, Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, NH, Michigan.

Dems will probably spend some money in W Virginia initially and Republicans may throw some money into Oregon and Minn but as the election starts shaking out I suspect those funds get redirected to more realistic targets. 

I don't see much change of flipflops in any states outside the ones I listed.  Hillary is not going to carry Virginia and a Republican is not going to carry a Wahington.

Hillary very well might be elected president, but it it won't be by the landslide necessary to put other states in play.  With her negatives her ceiling is probably 51% under the very best of circumstances.

I'm talking about Edwards running against Romney. Texas may be Hillary proof, but is it really 100% Democrat proof?

[7,052,770]

MS would go Democratic before GA or SC.

[WalterMitty]

MS would go Democratic before GA or SC.

no

[Wakie]

Every state is up for grabs, at least until they pick the nominees.

Just my humble opinion.

I tend to agree.  Of course it would take a Republican denouncing Mormons to lose Utah and a Democrat making a bluntly racist statement to lose Washington DC.

Washington DC is not a state. 

True dat ... but they still have some E votes (but I'm thinking the smiley means you know that).

[7,052,770]

MS would go Democratic before GA or SC.

no

yes

The key to winning Mississippi is getting blacks to turnout.  If some Democrat can figure out how to get blacks to the polls, he/she can win Mississippi.  In Georgia it takes more than that.