Reapportionment and the 2012 election

[Brittain33]

Assuming a reasonably competitive election in which neither candidate is a runaway winner and several states are competitive, here are the changes I see to the electoral votes the parties can bank on Day 1:

Republicans +7 (SC, GA, TX, UT, AZ, LA)

Democrats -6 (IL, NY, MA, NJ, PA, WA, MI)

Swing -1 (IA, FL, MO, NV, OH)

One could argue with the placement of MO and NV, maybe, but it's trivial.

[Psychic Octopus]

Just a little something I noticed... even if you give Ohio to John Kerry in 2004, under the 2012 map it still would not be a victory for him.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

That’s a big shift of EV votes, which means the GOP only needs to flip the following to win the

White House: IN-FL-NC-OH-VA-CO

Pence/Rubio take care of IN-FL

NC will take care of itself if the PV is close.

With Pence next door to OH, and Rubio is Catholic, OH probably leans GOP in a close PV race.

So, the battle would come down to VA-CO as the two main battleground states.

[dmmidmi]

For whatever it's worth: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/census-impact-on-2012-presidential-race-is-limited/

A couple things to note:
-Under the 2012 map, Obama would still have won with 359 electoral college votes
-The outcome of every single Presidential election in the past century would have been the same had the 2012 numbers been used

The only scenario where I see the new allocation of electoral votes becoming a hinderance for Obama's re-election chances is if the 2012 results look almost identical to the 2004 election results. Barring that, the outcome of the 2012 Presidential election will have little--if anything--to do with the new electoral college allocation.

[tpfkaw]

New victory scenarios for Republicans:

All blue states plus one state in green:

Or:

[opebo]

Six votes isn't much, given that Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada are evincing such a trend in the opposite direction.

[Mjh]

Six votes isn't much, given that Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada are evincing such a trend in the opposite direction.

You mean by electing a really conservative Republican governor in 2009 and three new Republicans to the House in 2010?

[Sbane]

Virginia trends with the nation. It is a good microcosm of the country. If Obama wins the popular vote in 2012, he will win Virginia.

[opebo]

Six votes isn't much, given that Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada are evincing such a trend in the opposite direction.

You mean by electing a really conservative Republican governor in 2009 and three new Republicans to the House in 2010?

Well, touché, but Colorado and Nevada are anyway 15 votes.  

[Zarn]

Six votes isn't much, given that Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada are evincing such a trend in the opposite direction.

You mean by electing a really conservative Republican governor in 2009 and three new Republicans to the House in 2010?

Well, touché, but Colorado and Nevada are anyway 15 votes.  

Pennsylvania is showing signs...

[Napoleon]

Six votes isn't much, given that Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada are evincing such a trend in the opposite direction.

You mean by electing a really conservative Republican governor in 2009 and three new Republicans to the House in 2010?

Well, touché, but Colorado and Nevada are anyway 15 votes.  

Pennsylvania is showing signs...

The Blue Firewall is impenetrable.

[5280]

Republicans can still win in 2012 with PA or VA without winning CO, NM and NV. Not the other way.

[pbrower2a]

Six votes isn't much, given that Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada are evincing such a trend in the opposite direction.

You mean by electing a really conservative Republican governor in 2009 and three new Republicans to the House in 2010?

Well, touché, but Colorado and Nevada are anyway 15 votes.  

Pennsylvania is showing signs...

Pennsylvania barely voted for a semi-fascist Senator. Florida barely voted for a crook as Governor. Both Republicans, both because lots of 2008 voters went into hibernation.  

[opebo]

Republicans can still win in 2012 with PA or VA without winning CO, NM and NV. Not the other way.

PA is a very long shot to base a GOP victory upon.  Would be more of a long shot than the Democrats counting on North Carolina.

[Mjh]

Six votes isn't much, given that Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada are evincing such a trend in the opposite direction.

You mean by electing a really conservative Republican governor in 2009 and three new Republicans to the House in 2010?

Well, touché, but Colorado and Nevada are anyway 15 votes.  

You can’t count Colorado or Nevada as reliable Democratic states. Obama won them when the Republicans were just a few percentage points more popular than lung-cancer, and the economy seemed to be collapsing. If (and that is a big if) the GOP nominates someone else than Palin or Gingrich I can easily see Colorado and/or Nevada going red in 2012.

My point is that nothing is certain yet.

[Mjh]

Six votes isn't much, given that Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada are evincing such a trend in the opposite direction.

You mean by electing a really conservative Republican governor in 2009 and three new Republicans to the House in 2010?

Well, touché, but Colorado and Nevada are anyway 15 votes.  

Pennsylvania is showing signs...

The Blue Firewall is impenetrable.

Just like the Republicans had a permanent lock on the presidential elections by their dominance in the Sun Belt, right?

[Napoleon]

Democrats won Colorado and Nevada with probably the two weakest Democratic incumbents other than Blanche Lincoln, of course, in 2010.

[Sbane]

Republicans can still win in 2012 with PA or VA without winning CO, NM and NV. Not the other way.

Some things to keep in mind about PA is that it was one of the states that was targeted heavily by Mccain in 2008, since he basically gave up on Wisconsin and Michigan (and the results show that). Also Obama's problem with blue collar workers manifested itself in PA before the rest of the midwest, particularly the upper midwest, due to his gaffe about western PA. So the swing against him that we saw in Wisconsin and Michigan had already happened in PA. Rather it will again be the Philly burbs who decide the winner, and if Obama is losing there he is losing the country. PA is close to being a tipping point state, but not quite.

[DS0816]

Republicans can still win in 2012 with PA or VA without winning CO, NM and NV. Not the other way.

Some things to keep in mind about PA is that it was one of the states that was targeted heavily by Mccain in 2008, since he basically gave up on Wisconsin and Michigan (and the results show that). Also Obama’s problem with blue collar workers manifested itself in PA before the rest of the midwest, particularly the upper midwest, due to his gaffe about western PA. So the swing against him that we saw in Wisconsin and Michigan had already happened in PA. Rather it will again be the Philly burbs who decide the winner, and if Obama is losing there he is losing the country. PA is close to being a tipping point state, but not quite.

When John McCain worked on trying to get Pennsylvania to go against the national trend, it served as an alternative to Michigan. His efforts were good for, perhaps, a full percent with the margin (John Murtha’s district was the only one in the country that flipped from the 2004 Democratic to 2008 Republican column).

Pa. has a partisan ID of a few more points more Democratic than on average to the rest of the country. Trendline in 2008 didn’t live up to 2004: 3-plus points, compared to 5-plus. But that’s a matter of the campaiging.

It’s important to note that, since the Republicans and Democrats first matched up in 1856, Pa. and Mich. have been likeminded — they’ve disagreed only in four elections. Two of those were ones in which each had been the home state of a party’s nominee: 1856 James Buchanan (D-Pa.) carried his home state while Mich. said no; 1976 Gerald Ford (R-Mich.), the incumbent who was never elected to the vice presidency and/or presidency, carried his home state while Pa. flipped to Jimmy Carter (D-Georgia) in a Democratic pickup of the White House. The other two presidenial disagreements were with the Franklin Roosevelt White House years: they both gave him carriage in 3 of his 4 elections — but not at the same time. (Pa. held in 1932 for unseated Republican Herbert Hoover; Mich. flipped in 1940 for GOP challenger Wendell Wilkie.)

The map has been realigned: When Republicans win the presidency, they carry all of the south (and/or border-south). When Democrats prevail, they pick up a select few in this area. (It was the opposite when the south was Solidly Democratic.) The GOP wins with such full support because, mathematically, they must; but, also, because of realignent with the “Southern strategy.” While Tricky Dick’s strategy was good for Electoral College blowouts exceeding 400 during the 1970s and 1980s, the charm wore off. With exceptions of New Hampshire and rising bellwether Iowa, the northeast, mid-Atlantic, upper midwest (Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin), and the pacific rim have not given a Republican presidential candidate carriage since the 1980s. And what really stood out, among these states, was Vermont. It is, historically, the most reliably Republican-voting state since the party became established in the 1850s: all elections, 1856–1988, with exception of 1964. Again, Richard Nixon’s “Southern strategy” worked only for a while—and then the north caught on to the change in the GOP’s platform. And it is highly likely these string of states won’t color red unless fundamental changes are made in the party’s platform.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Once again, Republicans win from redistricting. 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, and 1988 all give more electoral votes to the Republicans under the 2010 census than in real life.

[Napoleon]

Six votes isn't much, given that Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada are evincing such a trend in the opposite direction.

You mean by electing a really conservative Republican governor in 2009 and three new Republicans to the House in 2010?

Well, touché, but Colorado and Nevada are anyway 15 votes.  

Pennsylvania is showing signs...

The Blue Firewall is impenetrable.

Just like the Republicans had a permanent lock on the presidential elections by their dominance in the Sun Belt, right?

The map has favored Democrats ever since the New Democrats and DLC took over in 1992. Republicans naturally have an uphill climb to win Presidential elections in this alignment, much as Democrats did from 1968-1988. Compare the last three Democratic wins to the last two Republican victories and see for yourself.

[pbrower2a]

Six votes isn't much, given that Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada are evincing such a trend in the opposite direction.

You mean by electing a really conservative Republican governor in 2009 and three new Republicans to the House in 2010?

Well, touché, but Colorado and Nevada are anyway 15 votes.  

You can’t count Colorado or Nevada as reliable Democratic states. Obama won them when the Republicans were just a few percentage points more popular than lung-cancer, and the economy seemed to be collapsing. If (and that is a big if) the GOP nominates someone else than Palin or Gingrich I can easily see Colorado and/or Nevada going red in 2012.

My point is that nothing is certain yet.

Safer than Iowa and New Hampshire now, and perhaps Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, in view of their 2010 votes.

[pbrower2a]

Yes it is an uphill battle...I am afraid that on election night 2012 they will call Florida for Obama relatively early and that be the end of the election.

Last time it was Ohio.