Talk Elections

This year saw the number of battleground states shrink. NM, MN, MO and IN all pretty much left the list from 2008. MI and PA returned at the last minute. And WI was also a late entry after Paul Ryan was put on the ticket. There were no new states added in 2012.

So what about 2016? Will the battleground map continue to shrink? And are there some states that might join (or rejoin?) the club?  Obviously if certain candidates are running that changes things as they can use favorite son to push a state into the battleground, but what about the rest?

Depending on who is chosen, Texas & Arizona could come into play.

Georgia will join the club. I think it could pass Arizona as being more ripe for the picking - something that may even be demonstrated by the final results tomorrow night.

Depending on the candidate (Clinton?), Indiana and Missouri may come into play, although I wouldn't get too excited about this possibility just yet.

I might say that Minnesota and Michigan should no longer be considered 'swing states' in any capacity, but I imagine Republicans may begin to perform better here over the next cycle or two - if they abandon the creepy SoCon agenda.

Same as this year with Arizona, Georgia, Missouri and Indiana joining. Montana and Texas also possibilities

Indiana will be going back to her GOP ways for a very long time- in other words Indiana is not a swing state.

Hard to predict right now, it depends on the candidates, the demographics of the states and if Romney has a great 1st term or Obama wins tomorrow and does worse than his 1st term.

Of the nine 2012 battlegrounds and seeing how they voted last night and the trends, I think that NV will probably drop off the list in 2016. Maybe WI and NC too. MI, MN, and PA were not really battlegrounds this time and will probably remain off the list. But the GOP need to find some states where they can make some inroads of their own on Dem turf. But not sure I see room for new Dem targets. AZ still seems out of reach. Maybe GA?

NV actually trended Romney.
MI, MN, PA were not really battlegrounds, so I don't expect them to be battlegrounds in four years either.
GA and AZ won’t become battlegrounds in 2016.


2016 battlegrounds: FL, VA, NC, OH, NH, IA, CO, NV. Maybe even NM.

To win the White House, a Republican candidate must run the table and win FL, OH, NC, VA and one other state.

The Republicans will be forced to promise a comprehensive immigration reform and nominate a reformist, or maybe even a Hispanic candidate.
To be able to successfully rebrand themselves as immigration reformers, they will have to first block all attempts by President Obama to do the same.

Well all the swing states trended GOP because 2008 was such a blowout, plus Nevada's economy is in the toilet and yet Obama still won by 6 (more than PA). I think NV is headed the way of NM, as in off the table. If not in 2016, then 2020.

That is assuming the margins with Hispanics stay the same.
I think that the GOP will have to become the party of immigration reform if they wish to ever again compete in a presidential election.

After watching the 2012 GOP primaries where all of them tried to one up each other on how big of a wall they wanted to build, and if it should or should not contain crocodiles, I ind it hard to see how they will be seen as the party leading on this issue. At best they will be seen as the party who were brought into it kicking and screaming, because you know that in the House we are still going to see the Angry White Man Tea Party coalition demagogue on the issue because they have no fear of losing their gerrymandered districts.

Face it, the Latinos arent going to spin around and start voting GOP. Maybe better margins but no way winning that vote for a long time if ever.

In this week's election, the ordering of the states closest to the national average from biggest Obama win to smallest were:

ia > nh > pa > co > va > oh > fl

with CO as the tipping point state.

If we assume that Obama got some boost in OH from the auto bailout, which'll fade somewhat by 2016, and if we assume that Hispanic growth in CO will cause it to trend a bit more towards the Dems, then I could see PA is the #1 battleground in 2016....the state that both campaigns end up focusing the most on.  Of course it depends on who the candidates are, and what the circumstances are in a few years.

In any case, I don't think there'll be enormous shifts in just one election cycle.  Romney won Texas by, what?  16 points?  Predictions about it becoming a swing state as early as 2016 are ridiculous.

That's all fine, but the GOP needs FL, OH, VA, NC (not a given) and one other, say CO.

However, if everything stays the same, CO will trend further D, so the GOP would need to win the popular vote by at least 2% to barely carry CO.

If nothing is done to court the Hispanics, FL may slip out of reach, and PA alone wouldn't be enough to substitute FL. PA + CO = FL, but then the GOP would need another state, say NH.

This is such a big problem.


What else is there then?
Running up margins with the whites?

Romney’s margin was already 20 points. That's Reagan's margin against Carter.
Can that margin go any higher?

With the right candidate, NM could be a toss-up. ;)

the GOP needs to nominate a conservative, no RINO bullcrap and the party has to change itself entirely so there are less battleground states.

The same they have been since 2008. (Give or take a state or two, IN or NE-2 for example)

()

Democrats: 257
Republicans: 179
Toss-Up: 102

The current ones:
-Ohio
-Virginia
-Florida
-Nevada

The current ones will become blue:
-Colorado
-Wisconsin
-Iowa

The current ones that will be red:
-North Carolina

The NEW possible battleground states:
-Arizona
-Texas
-Georgia
-Mississippi (YES this will be a swing state, stop laughing!)
-Minnesota
-Indiana

the midwest.

Elections 2000-2012 as a basis:

D 4 times
D 3 times R once
even split (white)
R 3 times D once
D 4 times


()

It probably comes down to how well the nominees fit the culture as well as the relative strengths and weaknesses of the nominees. Barack Obama was an excellent fit for Virginia for a Democrat, having won it twice -- which is the sum of all other Democrats since FDR winning the state. Bill Clinton never won it, and neither did Carter. It is possible that Virginia has become demographically more like Pennsylvania than like Alabama. 

President Obama did worse than McGovern in 1972 and Mondale in 1984 in some states. 

Florida and Ohio have been swing states for a very long time and probably will be again.

New Mexico is now more solidly D than such states as Iowa, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and even Minnesota that have generally been considered part of the Blue Firewall. Colorado and Nevada may be going that way. I can imagine a Democratic nominee winning Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico yet losing Minnesota or Pennsylvania. Minnesota, the only state that voted for the late George McGovern? It was close this time.

The weakening of unions as a political force explains West Virginia going from a sure thing for Democrats in all elections other than blowouts (the state went for Carter in 1980 and Dukakis in 1988!) Coal executives have shown themselves political thugs, perhaps expecting that they would turn such coal miners who remain into pawns of a right-wing resurgence. I expect that the Obama presidency is going to try to undercut the power of mining tycoons who misbehaved politically. 

That said, Barack Obama was a horrible match, at least culturally, for the white South and almost all rural areas.  Too cosmopolitan? Too intellectual? Not connected to fundamentalist Christianity?     

The first thing to consider is that a large portion of the Republican vote was not necessarily anti-Democratic, it was anti-Obama, with the majority of that anti-Obama coming from either Hillary supporters (2008), people who (wrongly) believe he is a socialist (2012), and just general racists (2008 and 2012). I think by 2012 those pro-Hillary (Hillary44?) people came around to the Dem side (although I doubt that most of them honestly voted for McCain ticket in 2008). Don't have to worry about changing their minds to vote Democratic. The socialist-believing people have been, for the most part, tea party-ers. Again, don't need to worry about changing their minds. Not too many of the center-left/center-right electorate crying "socialist" either. That leaves the racist crowd. I think there is a good number of people who would have voted Democratic if the candidate was white, just being racists...

Unless some dark horse black candidate takes the national lead in 3 years ahead of the primaries, the candidate will most assuredly be not-black (it is looking increasingly like it will be Hillary Clinton). I forget who said it, but some prominent Democratic person said well before the general election that if Obama was white that Obama's re-election would have been a safe bet (as opposed to the idea that it would be a squeaker or possible loss). Here is your current crop of possible Democratic candidates who are black (i.e. most well-known persons):
-Mayor Michael Nutter (Philadelphia, PA). Yeah, good luck.
-Mayor Cory Booker (Newark, NJ). Don't have too much hope for him in NJ-Gov, and proven losers don't make good candidates.
-Rep. James Clyburn (SC 6th). He will be 75yo come primary season.
-Rep. Chaka Fattah (PA 2nd). He is way too liberal, and not well known outside of PA.
-Rep. John Lewis (GA 2nd). He will be 75yo come primary season.
-Rep. Charlie Rangel (NY 15th). Mired in a scandal, forget it.

I just don't see a black candidate making a run for it. As a result, the candidate will be someone more favorable to the racists of this country who can't vote for a black man. So this will help make traditional states that could have become swing because of the unfavorable demographics (read: more likely to have racists) be more "swing"y by 2016 and beyond.

Second thing to consider is that the economy will be so much better in 3 years that Obama will look like a genius (I'm just quoting this article, which I agree with: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/11/romney_obama_and_economics_the_economy_s_already_recovering_so_whoever_wins.html ). So you won't have that many center/center-right people blaming it on "Democrats" the same way center/center-left people were blaming "Republicans" in 2008.
This will help swing states which react to the economy to the Democrats more favorably (e.g. NH and IA).

Third thing to consider is the continued influence of Hispanics in states that have significant Hispanic populations. You have to believe that the next four years will bring certain reforms to allow Hispanics to achieve citizenship easier, which will result in a larger voting population of Hispanics. Here are the states currently considered "swing states" or those we will soon be considering "swing states" and their respective % population Hispanic (along with their rank out of the 50 states):
NM - #1 - 46.3% (swing)
TX - #3 - 37.6% (soon)
AZ - #4 - 29.6% (soon)
NV - #5 - 26.5% (swing)
FL - #6 - 22.5% (swing)
CO - #7 - 20.7% (swing)
GA - #24 - 8.8% (soon)
NC - #25 - 8.4% (swing)
VA - #28 - 7.9% (swing)
(every other state is under 7%...IN 6.0%, PA 5.7%, IA 5.0%, MO 3.5%, OH 3.1%, NH 2.8%)
Something to consider with NM and NV:
NM's margin of victory was greater than PA, MN and WI in both 2008 and 2012. And more than CT in 2012.
NV's margin of victory was greater than PA in both 2008 and 2012. MN in 2008, and CT in 2012.

Fourth thing to consider is Asian-American population. Asians saw a larger increase in population (percent-wise) than Hispanics. Do keep in mind that there are 50+ million Hispanics to 17+ million Asians. Both voting blocks, though, vote strongly with Democrats. Hispanics voted 71-27, while Asians bested them at 73-26. Here are the swing state rankings like above:
(Keep in mind, HI - #1 - 57.4%, CA - #2 - 14.9%, every other state is below 10%)
NV - #3 - 9.0% (swing)
VA - #8 - 6.5% (swing)
(every other "swing" state is below 4%...TX 4.4%, GA 3.8%, CO 3.7%, AZ 3.6%, PA 3.2%, FL 3.0%, NH 2.6%, NC 2.6%, IA 2.1%, MO 2.1%, IN 2.0%, NM 2.0%)

Fifth thing is African American population:
MS - #1 - 37.3%
LA - #2 - 32.0%
GA - #3 - 30.0%
MD - #4 - 29.4%
SC - #5 - 28.5%
AL - #6 - 26.4%
NC - #7 - 21.6%
DE - #8 - 21.0%
VA - #9 - 19.9%
TN - #10 - 16.8%
FL - #11 - 15.9%
...
MI - #16 - 14.2%
OH - #17 - 12.0%
TX - #18 - 11.9%
MO - #19 - 11.5%
PA - #20 - 10.8%
(every other state of note is less than 10%)
Something interesting to note: there are only three states where Obama's margin of victory in 2012 was BETTER than in 2008. They are AK and #1 and #2 on this list, MS and LA.

So all things considered...
You might as well take NV and NM off the table. Those are technically solid DEM when you consider the Hispanic populations, Asian population in NV, and that in both 2008 and 2012, their margins bested PA (which is considered a lean-DEM at this point).
PA, IA, MN and MI are off the table for 2016. A good portion of the votes in these states come from the racist vote (cling to their guns and religion as Obama put it), and that won't have an effect in 2016. Hell, just look at how Hillary did in the 2008 primary in PA (+10 points, 55/45).
You can take NH off the table. Besides going handily for Obama in 2008 and 2012, it went for Kerry in 2004. I think NH responds well to the economy and by 2016 this won't be an issue. IA, PA, and MI will also respond well with the economy since they are in the rust belt.

This leaves (in my mind): CO, AZ, TX, FL, VA, GA, NC.
CO, FL, VA, and NC are true swing states, at the moment.
GA is in the "very soon" category, maybe by 2016. The minority vote is just too big to ignore at this point. GA's margin of victory in these last two cycles were R+5.8 and R+8.0, respectively, both under 10 points.
AZ and TX are in the "soon, but not too soon" category. AZ's margin of victories were R+9.5 and R+11.5, respectively, but that Hispanic population is too hard to ignore. Unfortunately, Phoenix is not a traditional urban environment that goes 70+% for Democrats, so it'll probably be 2020 for it to be a swing state. Same deal for TX, which had a chance to be considered sooner than later, but it blew up this year. It was R+11.8 in 2008 but R+15.9 this year, which was more than MS (R+11.9), SC (R+10.9), and AK (R+13.4).


On one final note, I just saw Alaska's margin of victory...maybe it will be swing by 2016 and beyond? This is a trend, people! Haha!
2000 - R+30.95 (Bush @58.62%)
2004 - R+25.55 (Bush @61.07%)
2008 - R+21.53 (McCain @59.42%)
2012 - R+13.26 (Romney @54.51%) (99.8% precincts reporting...I think the missing precinct data is the absentee ballots because from the count as it stands now I am seeing a drop of 100,000+ votes, which seems unusual...so this margin might increase when it finally gets to 100%, we'll see.)

If those are the swing states, there's no point in having a presidential election. We may as well declare the Democratic Party candidate the winner since a Democrat wouldn't need a single one of those swing states to win.

I was talking about a more realistic scenario in which the GOP does not concede the presidential election.

"Battleground states" presume a competitive election, in which the two parties are close to parity, a la 2000, 2004, and 2012.  In elections where one candidate has a big national lead, what happens on a state-by-state level is irrelevant.  So these predictions in which a dozen states move towards the Dems and nothing moves back towards the GOP don't make much sense in the context of the question being asked.  If some states are moving towards the Dems relative to the national average, then other states have to be moving towards the GOP relative to the national average.

could Julian Castro beat Christie in Texas?

@LJube: I understand what you are saying, I am just pointing the reality of things.

Now, obviously if the economy tanks, we are talking about a different story all together, but if things stay status-quo, or the economy improves (as most expect it to do), then honestly, can you tell me that PA, NV, NM, MN, WI, MI and IA are battlegrounds given their electoral history in the past 4 elections?

PA hasn't gone Republican since 1988 when GWBush was riding off Reagan, and even then the margin was small. In 1984's landslide year, it was 6th (!!!!) in terms of states for Reagan, better than more traditional blue states like NY, VT and DE (DC went D+71.6, MN went D+0.2, MA was R+2.8, RI was R+3.6, MD was R+5.5, and next up was PA at R+7.35, followed by IA at R+7.38)
1984 R+7.35
1988 R+2.3
1992 D+9
1996 D+9.9
2000 D+4.2
2004 D+2.5
2008 D+10.3
2012 D+6.2
And the Dem's have a 1,000,000 (you read that right, one million) registration advantage in the state. It has been and will continue to be fools gold for Republicans.

Same story in Michigan. No wins since 1988. Margins are much better for Dems than PA starting in 1996, too.
1992 D+7.4
1996 D+13.2
2000 D+5.1
2004 D+3.4
2008 D+16.5
2012 D+7.5
It is NOT a battleground state.

MN is even worse for Republicans. It has not gone Republican since 1972! I have no clue how anyone thought it was a battleground in 2012. It wasn't. Democrats cleaned up in all levels in Minnesota this year.

WI is a bit worse than PA for Republicans, having not gone Republican since 1984.
1988 D+3.6 (better than PA)
1992 D+4.4
1996 D+10.3 (better than PA)
2000 D+0.2
2004 D+0.4
2008 D+13.9 (better than PA)
2012 D+6.8 (better than PA, even with Ryan on the ticket)

It is important to note that MI, WI and PA admittedly have given problems for Dems in non-presidential years. But in Presidential years? Forget it, the turn out is there.

Starting in 1992, NV turned a corner. And now Dems are 4 for the last 6 elections, and it is getting worse:
1992 D+2.6
1996 D+1.0
2000 R+3.6
2004 R+2.6
2008 D+13.5
2012 D+6.6
The demographics are just not favorable for Republicans with the Latino vote, and for 3 straight election cycles the polling averages have underestimated Democratic performance. Polling average of D+5, R+5 (Harry Reid ended up winning) and D+4. I expect there to be immigration reform in the next 3 years, at which point it is all over in Nevada.

Same deal for New Mexico as with New Mexico. Hell, in 2012 NM was already declared to be solid Dem. NM has gone D in 5 of the last 6 elections, with a razor thin margin in 2004. It is off the table.
1992 D+8.6
1996 D+7.5
2000 D+0.06
2004 R+0.8
2008 D+15.2
2012 D+9.9

Iowa...similar story here. Dems are 6 for 7 in the last 7 elections. I really don't see how this could be in play with a candidate like Hillary on the ballot, especially with the state being pretty liberal, socially (gay marriage is legal here).
1984 R+7.38 (7th worst state/territory for Reagan as described above)
1988 D+10.2
1992 D+6.0
1996 D+10.3
2000 D+0.3
2004 R+0.7
2008 D+9.6
2012 D+5.5

NH same story as Iowa, going Dem in 5 of the last 6 elections, with a pretty slim margin in 2000:
1992 D+1.3
1996 D+10.0
2000 R+1.2
2004 D+1.4
2008 D+9.6
2012 D+5.8
Like IA, I don't see how this would be in play with a candidate like Hillary. It has been fools gold for Republicans the last two election cycles.

Basically, the reality is that the Republican Party, unless they change their tone on certain issues like immigration reform, tax reform, healthcare reform, etc. they will continuously be playing on the defensive as the Democratic map expands into states once expected to be solid Republican (GA, NC, VA, AZ, TX) due to unfavorable demographics.
Giving Democrats all the states I mentioned above (NH, IA, MI, PA, NV, NM, WI) gives them 263, still not 270. With battlegrounds in NC, VA, AZ, GA, FL, OH and CO, it gives Republicans 164, and to win they have to run the table with those states, which is 100% possible, but becoming difficult given the demographics in these states.




@LJube + Mr. Morden:
I get the question, just I am saying that even in a close election like we saw this year where the economy was "eh", unemployment is high, and the presidential favorables were barely passable, states like PA, IA, WI and MI were really not "battlegrounds".

There are just so many factors that you can't really say what would be a battleground and what wouldn't.
If you want to say that the economy will go into depression in 2015, it could put traditional blue states like New York in play!
If the Republicans embrace latinos and immigration reform in the next 3 years, it could make Nevada and New Mexico competitive again.
If Republicans stop this war on women in the next 3 years and embrace women's rights, it will close the gender gap and make states like WI, PA, MI and OR competitive again.

What I wrote above in my long post is based on status quo, but with a better economy (since that is the way things are pointing) in 2015-2016, no changes in platforms for Republicans on immigration or women's rights. And if that is the case, I just don't see how NM, NV, PA, MI, WI, IA, NH and MN could be "battlegrounds" considering they haven't been in a long time.



Edit:
A good example of what I speak of is the 1932 election, the result of the great depression.
The Republicans had won 3 straight elections by landslides, 1920 (404-127), 1924 (382-136), and 1928 (444-87). I guarantee that after they won in 1928 they were probably not thinking that any of their states were battlegrounds. The following states went Republican in those 3 years:
CA, OR, WA, NV, ID, MT, WY, UT, AZ, CO, NM, ND, SD, NE, KS, MN, IA, MO, IL, IN, MI, OH, WV, PA, MD, DE, NJ, NY, CT, VT, NH, ME
The following states went twice for Republicans out of the 3:
KY, TN, OK, MA, RI, WI
These went only once for Republicans:
TX, NC, VA, FL
These went 0 times:
SC, GA, AL, MS, AR, LA

Then of course, we had the depression and pretty much every state became a battleground.
If there was no depression, and it was status quo, the map would probably have looked similar to 1928...

Believe it or not he could.......in 2020.

@tokar

PA, MI, WI and MN are trending Republican. With a right candidate (one who can relate to white working class and turn out evangelicals = a compassionate conservative bordering populist) they can be in play as soon as 2016.

A compassionate conservative would greatly increase his share of blacks and Hispanics and probably win Asians.

No they aren't. Seriously, where did you pull this out of your ass?

If Georgia is a swing state, NC will be also.

I think right now there is an established base barring a 3%+ victory by either party of about 160-180 EV's each.

*IF* CO, NV, GA, NC, FL and VA are contested, advantage Democratic Party.

*IF* PA, WI, NH, MN, OR, IA, NM and MI are contested, advantage Republican.

Ohio(at this point) is the only state I can think of that has, is, and will continue to be contested.

Evangelicals are a shrinking constituency. If I were on the Right I would not bank on their votes.

2012 results are still not final, but:

PA + 3.05 D in 2008, +2.68 D in 2012
MI + 9.15 D in 2008, + 6.94 D in 2012
WI + 6.64 D in 2008, + 4.13 D in 2012

PA, MI and WI trended Republican.


MN didn’t trend Republican:

MN + 2.97 D in 2008, + 5.11 D in 2012


Unlike 2008, Obama campaigned in all four (or Bill Clinton).
McCain campaigned in PA in 2008.

What would you do then?

Remember, the goal is to win the election, not to merely participate.

But they did not vote for either Gore or Kerry, just the same. (Tennessee was 'only' a 5% loss for Gore, but that is supposedly his home state; take out 10% from the vote for Gore and you have an idea of how the state is without a Democratic favorite son). Is there someone who could win the (Bill) Clinton-but-not-Obama voters in Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Tennessee, and West Virginia? If so, then that Democratic nominee wins a landslide in 2016. Texas and Arizona, good for about as many electoral votes, will likely be closer than any of those states in 2016.

It is hard to imagine any black person as a Presidential or Vice-Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in 2016. Barack Obama was good enough a politician that he could get away with being black and become President and be good enough as President to get re-elected despite still being black. You missed Douglas Wilder, who is already old. I can say this: the first black winner of any statewide election in the Deep South (especially Governor or US Senator) will have shown what it takes to be President. Lots of luck.  A black pol can be elected to the US Congress or as Mayor of a giant city, but such is at least two steps away from the Presidency.        



Americans may want someone to continue the policies of Barack Obama without being... you guessed it. Such could cripple a Republican's chance of winning the Presidency. Take away the votes of people who would never vote for any black person for high office and President Obama wins a landslide similar to that of Eisenhower in 1956.


It is much more likely that one of the nominees for President or Vice-President will be Hispanic than black. But even so, the Republicans have much to do to start eroding the Hispanic support for Democrats. That includes Cuban-Americans in Florida.

Pandering to superstition and pseudoscience of low-class whites will not win Hispanics.

Other minorities are smaller, and perhaps except for Asians in Nevada, not so critical. In a close-enough election one can attribute the difference to such groups as Jews, homosexuals, people with advanced degrees, or even to people in certain professions. Could several states have been decided by the "schoolteacher vote"? That is a large occupational group.

Ohio, Virginia and Florida certainly...any other state is too early to call a battleground at this time because we don't know the candidates yet.

A Hillary vs. Rubio matchup will produce a different battleground map than a Hillary vs. Christie or a Cuomo vs. Jeb, etc.

That's such a difficult question. I'm shading the states, the higher the % the more likely it'll be a swing state. Not taking any candidate's home states into consideration. Generic R vs. Generic D.


()

Well, even though it sounds ridiculous, just based on the numbers he is factually correct...


I think your numbers are off. I am having a hard time figuring out where you got them:

This is what I am seeing:
(State: 2008 margin...2012 margin)
PA: D+10.3...D+5.25
MI: D+16.4...D+9.4
WI: D+13.9...D+6.7
MN: D+8.2...D+7.7


I mean, the argument is valid from a straight up look at the number. The problem with the argument is that there were 10,000,000 fewer votes than 2012, and I'm sure the electorate has expanded since 2008, in other words, turnout is way down.

I have been specifically just looking at Virginia, since this is where I live.
In 2008, turnout was at almost 75%. The raw vote was 3.72m. The number of registered voters was a little under 5.1m.
In 2012, turnout will be a little over 70%. The raw vote (currently) is 3.74m, and there are about 116,000 votes outstanding (all of them uncounted absentee, 92,500 of which come from Fairfax county, the remainder come from dem leaning areas, so, expect Obama's margin of victory to increase quite a bit), so you are looking at possibly 3.84m votes or so? Problem is that nearly 400,000 people have registered since 2008 (the majority of them moving to Dem-heavy Northern VA, thus suggesting most of those votes were democratic), bringing the statewide registration over 5.4m. Turnout was down.

So just looking at the margins (D+6.3 in 2008, vs D+3.1 in 2012) you could argue the state is trending Republican. But in reality, the state has been trending Democrat for the past 8 years since the majority of the population expansion of those near-900,000 new registrants are diverse, educated folk who vote Democratic, having moved to the area for the jobs created by expanding Government (mostly the military budget, thanks in part to George Bush).

It is just a simple means of turnout. If the turnout was the same, and the margin went down, then I could fully agree.

Just by the margin argument alone, I could argue Mississippi and Louisiana are trending Democratic since Obama's margin improved. In reality it was related to turnout. The Republican ticket saw a larger drop in vote share than did Obama, and thus Obama's % margin improved.

We are going to have to wait for the full numbers to come in so we can see if there were any states where turnout remained the same, at which point we can compare the numbers and see.

@tokar

I subtracted the national margin from the state margin. That’s how I got my numbers.

If we did that for Virginia, we would have:

VA – 0.98 D in 2008, + 0.41 D in 2012

Obviously, Virginia trending D.


Again, because you live in Virginia, could you tell me something? I noticed that the percentage of evangelicals voting in 2012 was way down compared to 2008. What was the reason for this?
I think they didn’t turn out because Mitt is a mormon.

Also, in MI, WI, PA and OH lots of working class whites didn’t turn out.
I think these are lost to the Democratic Party and that they will turn out next time to vote for a compassionate conservative with a populist message.

1. Barack Obama is a poor cultural match for working-class whites. Unlike working-class blacks, Hispanics, and Asians they (especially in the South) do not follow the influence of more liberal-leaning middle-class whites (and that is where most of the liberal whites are even if they are decidedly less than a majority of the white middle class).  Anti-intellectualism is more powerful than racism as a political tool for winning over working-class whites heavily concentrated in the South. Gore and Kerry did about as badly among working-class whites, and they were both white.

Anti-intellectualism offends all Asian groups, the extended "talented tenth" among blacks and those that they influence, and Hispanics who recognize education not so much a threat to their culture (it is to poor whites) as the only possible means of avoiding poverty. 

2. "Compassionate conservative" is all but an oxymoron in American politics as the word "conservative" is now used. The Radical Right has seized the word conservative for its own reactionary agenda and stripped it of the connotations of caution and respect for institutions that the word once met.

But that said, the old sort of conservative was always the antithesis of a populist. Right-wing populism with its basis in economic and cultural resentments (ill-educated whites have to compete with poor blacks and Hispanics and resent the loss of privilege in being white that they once thought theirs) can be demonically effective in winning votes. 

Republicans need to hold onto that group, but that will be easy. They need to pick off more people. Pandering to the anti-intellectualism of that group ensures that the Republicans must
win some new batch of single-issue voters. Anti-abortion, anti-homosexual, and gun-rights groups are already theirs.  

Republicans have a chance if the Democrats nominate an unusually-weak candidate for President, but at this stage that says little.  

This is a good idea of what we start with. There will be no change in the electoral votes of states this time. At this point anyone trying to predict who will be the Presidential nominee for either party is a fool. I assume a close Presidential contest in November 2016 because such is the only possibility that is interesting now. Blowouts are boring.

()

1. Colorado was the tipping-point state in 2012. Due to its demographics (fast-growing Hispanic population) it is likely to go up the list, perhaps going up with states like Michigan and Minnesota as unreachable in a close race. Pennsylvania (because of its size and position) is most likely to be the tipping-point state in 2016.

2. The Favorite Son effect could be enough to swing a state. If Governor Rick Snyder (R-MI) is the Republican nominee, then Michigan goes from Solid D to weak R due to that effect, ceteris paribus. In contrast, Brian Schweitzer (D-MT) might be enough to swing Montana. Of course that is with someone who has a positive image in his own state. Michelle Bachmann will not swing Minnesota, and John Edwards will not swing North Carolina.  Consider the weird possibilities if Kathleen Sebelius is the Presidential nominee. She was an effective Governor of Kansas, arguably one of the strongest Republican states. 

3. The polarization between the states says much about the states --  but it also reflects how Barack Obama campaigned for re-election. Almost every state that he contested he won (North Carolina is the exception). He had a broader focus than Gore (Florida above all else) or Kerry (Ohio above all else) but it was only five states. In view of the resources that the Right had against him, he had to stay clear of such states as Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, and Missouri which otherwise might have been closer. But getting closer in Georgia and still losing it and losing Wisconsin would have been a disaster to his strategy.   

4. We are going to see fresh approval ratings for President Obama. The polling business does not stop on election day; it only takes a short vacation. Polling on whether Hillary Clinton or Mario Cuomo (or for that matter, Mario Rubio or Jon Huntsman) projects to win South Carolina will likely have the question "Do you approve or disapprove of the performance of Barack Obama as President?"

How well things go for President Obama determines how vulnerable almost any Democrat will be in 2016 and whether a Republican can offer a viable alternative to the status quo. The barrage of deep-pocket invective against President Obama will quickly fade from relevance in day-to-day politics. If approval ratings for the President go into the high 50s and stay there, then any Republican nominee will have potential difficulties in some of the states that President Obama didn't campaign in.

Barack Obama could not afford to campaign in Georgia, Missouri, Indiana, Montana, South Carolina, or Arizona in 2012.  He campaigned in all of those except South Carolina and Arizona in 2008.

9. Primary campaigns can leave behind an apparatus for contesting the national election. That is how Barack Obama put Indiana in play in 2008. Unlikely states might go into play because someone decides to keep a state in play because he can turn resources established in the primary into a campaign apparatus in the autumn. 

10. Some people whom we think are likely candidates will decide early that the Presidency isn't for them (think of Mike Huckabee). Some may have hidden scandals or make discrediting gaffes. There could be issues of health.

11. Doesn't winning the Big Prize all come down to personalities, perceptions of competence, and fundraising?

 

This map is assuming that the GOP continues to ignore hispanics, or completely fails to win them over.  This is assuming a tie in the popular vote. 

()

Dark Red, Safe D states:  The GOP won't be winning Minnesotta, its just not swingy enough.

Light Red, Likely D states:  New Jersey could flip due to Christie.  New Mexico continues drifting lefward.  Wisconsin wouldn't budge even with a native son on the Republican ticket, I don't see Michigan or Oregon going R without a significant advantage in the nationwide popular vote.

Pink, Lean D states: The GOP's electoral problems get even worse in the next 4 years as Colorado become more Democratic than Pennsylvania, making PA the tipping point state.  Virginia will also continue to drift leftward as it has for the past few elections and would be about on par with PA and CO. I don't know whats up with Iowa and New Hampshire, they voted solidly D this time around but I wouldn't discount them swinging back to the center.  Nevada will almost be Light Red at this point.

Grey, Tossups:  North Carolina will drift to about the national average.  Ohio and Florida will reprise their roles as traditional swing states.  Remember though, the election will have been won already with CO + PA or VA.

Very Light Blue, Lean R:  Alaska had a surprising swing to the Democrats from 2008, beyond even what Palin being on the ticket would account for (there is a significant swing from 2004 as well).  I'm not quite sure why, but its worth keeping an eye on.  Montana can go D with the right Democrat.  It has two Democratic Senators and a Democratic governor. If Schweitzer is on the ticket it will probably go D.  Georgia will be in 2016 where North Carolina was in 2008.

Light Blue, Likely R: I've pretty much given up on Arizona.  It doesn't seem to be moving leftwards at all.  There are too many other factor other than just Latino growth going on there to really put this in play.  This goes doubly so for Texas.  Missouri continues to trend R, and Indiana and NE-2 look like a one off event.  Senate races have shown that the Dakotas will flip for the right Democrat, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.

Dark Blue, Safe R: Sorry Mississippi Democratic Party, its not going to flip. 

Ahhh, I understand how you got it. State margin relative to the national margin. OK.

With Virginia:
1) Need to wait a bit more for two reasons: 1, the national margin will keep going up, 2, the Virginia margin will be going up for reasons stated earlier (100,000 votes outstanding from absentee, almost all from Dem-leaning areas)
2) Turnout was down. If turnout was as high as 2008, percentage-wise (75+%), I guarantee the margin would be greater.
3) I mean I agree on a pure numbers argument that the state is trending Republican (smaller margin compared to 2008 = trend). I understand. Just you need to look at demographics and what has happened in the state. In 2004, before the military budget absolutely blew up and brought tons of new jobs to the state, there were 4.5m registered voters in the state. Fast forward to 2012 and we now have 5.4m, with the majority of those registrations in heavy-Dem-leaning areas of Northern Virginia.

I could make the same kind of argument in Louisiana with Republicans. From a pure margin standpoint, Republican margin was down, therefore one could say it is trending Democratic. But we all know lots of people, post-Katrina, have moved out of the state, mostly Democratic voters. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see it is trending Republican.
Same deal for Mississippi. Margin down, trending...Democrat??


You have to look at so many more factors than just margin to determine trend, in my opinion. Considering conservatives' problems with Latinos, states like AZ, CO, NM, NV, TX and FL are all trending Democratic regardless of what the margins say.
Considering the renewed energy of Native Americans, you could argue MT and ND are trending democratic (see 2008, and wins by Tester and Heitkamp in 2012).

It just comes down to turnout, turnout, turnout (GOTV!). The party that can energize its base better will win, just one party or another will have a much easier time since some states are trending, demographically, one way or another. It is much easier for a Democrat to mobilize the vote in Pennsylvania than a Republican since there are just more Democratic votes available to the candidate thanks to the registration margin that has been trending Democratic for years now.

I think the only states you can argue are REALLY trending republican are your usual suspects:
ID, UT, WY, NE, KS, OK, AR, LA, MS, AL, TN, KY, WV, IN, SC, MO, SD, IN. I can not reasonably justify any reason why they would be trending Democratic. I am aware that MS, AL, and SC have huge African American populations, but even with 100% turnout, the rest of the states are just too conservative to overtake. GA is an interesting case. Large black population, and things around Atlanta are starting to duplicate what has happened in PA and VA, with the majority of the vote coming from that urban center. The counties of Cobb, Fulton, DeKalb and Clayton (all around Atlanta) accounted for 29% of the vote in 2008, 28% this year.

Cobb is a R+10 county, ~300k votes
Fulton is a D+30 county, ~400k votes
Clayton is a D+70 county, ~100k votes
DeKalb is a D+55 county, ~300k votes
This is a radius of about 20-30 mi outside of Atlanta (which is the average distance for Metropolitan areas. Wikipedia for Atlanta shows counties as far out as 50-60 miles, which is probably not appropriate to be included for this. With a large enough radius I can get to 100%! :) ).
According to this blog post, the white registered population is down again this year: link (http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2012/10/30/white-voter-registration-in-ga-dips-below-60-percent/).
Jan 01 - White 72%
Jan 07 - White 67%
2008 - White 63%
2012 - White 59%
While African American population has stood still at 30% (compared to 2008), the blogger states the voting block with the increase comes from groups that describe themselves as something other than the usual five (white, black, asian, hispanic, native american). Muslim maybe? Got me...

Gray and pink are the battle grounds, the grey being true tossups, the pink all leaning Democratic.

()

My sentiments exactly...except with Wisconsin being a solid Dem as opposed to lean Dem. Paul Ryan being on a ballot affected things a bit.

Pretty much identical to my much more complicated map, at least in spirit. 

The meme of the Midwest becoming Republican will not come to fruition. The 2016 map will look almost the same as the 2012 map if it's a close race (though Hillary would make AR a tossup, Christie would make NJ a tossup, etc.)

Map Series!!

Obama's second term a disaster
()

Republican: 285
Democratic: 186
Toss-Up: 67

Obama's second term a success
()

Republican: 154
Democratic: 332
Toss-Up: 52

Obama's second term meh quality
()

Republican: 191
Democratic: 233
Toss-Up: 114

Obviously very unscientific so don't savage me for these.

The Favorite Son effect disappears from Illinois, which didn't give that smashing an Obama  win in 2012. Chicagoland suburbs hold the balance of power in Illinois, and if they go R, the Democratic nominee is in big trouble.


I would put Indiana in play.

Indiana? Sure -- if conditions resemble 2008 in which the democratic nominee contests Indiana and keeps it in play. If Sherrod Brown should be the Democratic nominee, then Indiana is in play. That also happens if Indiana legislates voting hours more like those of Ohio or Michigan or allows early voting, in which case Indiana no longer gives nationwide Republicans an advantage. NE-02 could again be interesting.


[/quote]

What Democrat runs will matter greatly.

This. It's not really plausible for there be a close election where Democrats are competitive in (say) TX, WI and NH all at once.

I predict that Ohio will be the key battleground state yet again.

I think Pennsylvania, which was largely ignored during this cycle, will yet again be a key battleground.

Florida is a dead given battleground as well.

Colorado and Virginia are trending dem, but not fast enough to put them out of contention, so they're in as well.

North Carolina should be trending dem enough to put it in play.

Iowa is always competitive and will probably be so again.

Missouri and Indiana are gone for the dems, I think. Likewise, I don't think Arizona, Georgia, Montana or Texas are ready to really be contested by the dems yet. 2020 at the very earliest unless we face a landslide.

On the other side, I think New Hampshire is gone for GOP. If Romney and McCain couldn't do much in New Hamspire, I don't think many other GOP'ers can. I'm unsure about Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan, but I'm thinking that these aren't really all that competitive.

So I make it 7 key battleground states. Sure others will be contested, but in a fairly even election, I don't think they'll break from rank.