Future battleground states

[nclib]

Included are all states that voted for one candidate by at least 20%.

I'd say Texas, but only if Hispanics outvote whites and no Bushes are on the ticket.

[danwxman]

Texas

[Rob]

Montana.

[Alcon]

Assuming no drastic change in parties or Zell Miller vs. Lincoln Chafee type things and assuming that the candidate is not from that state (this could flip several states here, like Indiana to Bayh):

Utah - Would take a conservative populist Mormon. The least likely state to be a swing state on the Republican side. 2/10.

Wyoming - Wyoming is a libertarian-leaning conservative state, and would be a battleground with a libertarian-leaning conservative Democrat against a right-wing Republican that supports strong control in certain areas. Unlikely, though. 4/10.

Idaho - Like Utah, but with more libertarians. Still, you can't do well to improve here. You either win over the libertarians in the north or the populists in the south - there's no middle. 3/10.

Nebraska - You do well in the first two congressional districts and have low turnout in the third and it could be gametime. Probably not, though. 4/10.

Oklahoma - Oklahoma elects Democrats locally, sometimes. Oklahoma did not elect Brad Carson over Tom Coburn. This says enough about the chances. Oklahoma has became extremely conservative. 4/10.

North Dakota - Same populist/libertarian splitting you have in Idaho, but less conservative. A very independent state, though. 5/10.

Alabama - Southern Dixiecrats only. 6/10.

Alaska - See Wyoming. 4/10.

Kansas - Like Nebraska, but without an insanely Republican district like NE-3. 5/10.

Indiana - Bayh could flip it. A non-Indianan would have to work, but it is possible. 7/10.

Massachusetts - Maybe in a total landslide. 5/10.

Washington, D.C. - Would vote for a dead log if it was a Democrat. 1/10.

Montana - Libertarian state. Will vote libertarian Democrat vs. far-right populist Republican. 9/10.

Rhode Island - Maybe. 7/10.

South Dakota - Libertarian leaning, moderate conservative state. 8/10.

Texas - Hispanic vote is fairly split, and there aren't enough Hispanics anyway. 6/10.

Vermont - After the pot smoke clears, Democrats will be winning Vermont for a good time now, I'd bet. 6/10.

In reality the answer is Montana.

But I voted my second choice, South Dakota, just because.

[nclib]

North Dakota - Same populist/libertarian splitting you have in Idaho, but less conservative. A very independent state, though. 5/10.

Where are the populists and where are the libertarians?

[Alcon]

North Dakota - Same populist/libertarian splitting you have in Idaho, but less conservative. A very independent state, though. 5/10.

Where are the populists and where are the libertarians?

It's more spread out. There are a lot of highly religious people, a lot of traditionalists, and a lot of "goverment should leave us alone" people. Overall, I'd call it populist-leaning but not enough that a populist would automatically make it a battleground against a libertarian.

[True Democrat]

Montana

[Sam Spade]

I like y'all a lot, but you don't understand Texas. 

I'm laying even money on the Democrats not even getting back into statewide office for the next six years.

Texas, more than any other big state in the Union, has historically had a big one-party problem.  One party controlled the state and most importantly, the "moderates" of the state.  It's just the way the place works.

Of course, from 1860-1990, that party was the Democrats.  In only 10 years, I've seen that turn around nearly 100%.  Who are the Democrats going to run for governor this time around?

THe only names I hear are Republicans (and of course, the "independent" Kinky Friedman).  And its not just conservative, "nutty" Republicans, its moderate pro-choice Republicans as well. 

Until the Democrats can formulate any moderate candidates in Texas (and I hardly see any right now), they'll never have a chance statewide.  And right now all the moderates are running as Republicans.  Knowing Texas history, I doubt that's going to change without some huge tidal shift in voting patterns.

And don't place all your luck on Hispanics.  Texas Hispanics as a whole are much more conservative than pretty much anywhere else in the US. (maybe Florida, but that's impacted by the Cubans).

Democrats have to focus back on what they won with in the past:  that is that 30% of Texas residents that live in what's called "rural Texas".  I doubt in the last Presidential election, Kerry topped 30-35% max there.

Anyway, after that long speech, here are my predictions:

Dems:

Montana (easy)
Alaska

The others will grow in toughness.

Do not take South Dakota seriously folks (Alcon).  They hate incumbents. 

I only see 4 Kerry states on the list.  Of the four, the easy pick is:
Rhode Island (but nowhere near as much as Montana or Alaska)

Anyway, Montana's probably the only really good pick of these.  Most of the rest are well, sort of long shots.

[Alcon]

SamSpade,

South Dakota does have a bit of an anti-incumbnent record, but Clinton lost it by only three points despite Perot not doing all that amazingly there.

I am aware of its record of voting against incumbnents, but what I say still stands. It is less in play than Montana. If I believed there was no anti-incumbnency, I would have placed it in the same category as Montana - Bush only did 1% better in South Dakota than Montana this year.

By the way, Montana also has some anti-incumbnency, as do a LOT of Libertarian states (Alaska, Oregon, South Dakota, and Wyoming.)

[Colin]

I really don't see how people think that Montana would be battleground state for anytime within the next 25 years. The way Clinton won it was because a right-wing third party candidate, Perot, did very well in 1992. I cannot see Montana going Democrat without a strong third party presence. The only way I can see most of these states becoming battlegrounds is either a landslide in favour of one candidate, much like 1984 or 1964, or a major realignment in American politics, like the Republican becoming libertarians and the Democrats becoming populists or vice-versa.

[George W. Bush]

Rhoad Island

[BobOMac2k2]

Any southern state... All you need is a Democrat from the south and it will tip quite a few states.

The north for the most part will got Dem no matter what.

[ATFFL]

Any southern state... All you need is a Democrat from the south and it will tip quite a few states.

Yeah, like John Edwards.

Or Al Gore.

[H. Ross Perot]

Texas would be it, unless the Haspanics keep trending GOP.

[MaC]

In 2008, it's all coming down to Michigan baby!  By 2008, Granholm will still be in office, but she'll have had a major stain on the record by a huge scandal.  While my home county of Macomb grows more Republican, the suburbs'll get more of the people who used to be Detroiters.  It's almost as if Detroit is thinning out, and the suburbs have suburbs.  The Upper Peninsula, and nothern Mich will become more solidly Republican.  The way things are trending, Clinton wins big in 1996, Gore wins by a substancial amount in 2000, and Kerry just barely squeaked by.  Add a sucessful third party to shake things up, and bam!, the next big swing state.  Of course in the rare instance I'm wrong, my second place bets are on Pennsylvania, Maine and Wisconsin.

[danwxman]

In 2008, it's all coming down to Michigan baby!  By 2008, Granholm will still be in office, but she'll have had a major stain on the record by a huge scandal.  While my home county of Macomb grows more Republican, the suburbs'll get more of the people who used to be Detroiters.  It's almost as if Detroit is thinning out, and the suburbs have suburbs.  The Upper Peninsula, and nothern Mich will become more solidly Republican.  The way things are trending, Clinton wins big in 1996, Gore wins by a substancial amount in 2000, and Kerry just barely squeaked by.  Add a sucessful third party to shake things up, and bam!, the next big swing state.  Of course in the rare instance I'm wrong, my second place bets are on Pennsylvania, Maine and Wisconsin.

Umm, I hate to break it to you but Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and to a lesser extent Maine are already swing states.

[danwxman]

Although the margin of victory for Democrats has shrunk in the last few elections in Pennsylvania....That doesn't mean anything. The fact that Bush made PA his NUMBER ONE state (visiting it over 50 times), his JACKPOT....and he still lost 51-48 is quite telling. Pennsylvania goes for Democrats, unless a Republican landslide.

[True Democrat]

Pennsylvania goes for Democrats, unless a Republican landslide.

If a Republican could win by a solid 4 of 5 points, they would win Pennsylvania.

[tinman64]

Montana.  It went for Clinton in '92, and it elected a Democratic governor in '04.  At one time, it was the most Democratic Rocky Mountain state (that distinction now belongs to NM).

There have always been Dem pockets in MT even in GOP eras. 

This is a state where Evan Bayh could be competitive in '08.

[danwxman]

Pennsylvania goes for Democrats, unless a Republican landslide.

If a Republican could win by a solid 4 of 5 points, they would win Pennsylvania.

If they campaign as hard as Bush did.

[Gustaf]

I vote Texas.

1.There is an inherent probability for bigger states to be more even (a bigger sample size increases the probability of being more reflective of the country as a whole and also encourages the opposition party tp try hard to win the state)

2. Texas Republicanism is exaggerated by the fact that a there has been a Texan on all but one GOP ticket since 1980.

3. More and more Hispanics, less and less old Southern whites.

[Colin]

Montana.  It went for Clinton in '92, and it elected a Democratic governor in '04.  At one time, it was the most Democratic Rocky Mountain state (that distinction now belongs to NM).

There have always been Dem pockets in MT even in GOP eras. 

This is a state where Evan Bayh could be competitive in '08.

How many times do I have to tell people this.

1.) Clinton won it because their was a major third party campaign. Perot was able to take away votes from Bush and that allowed Clinton to win Montana. Take away Perot and Montana is a Bush state.

2.) The Democratic Party is Montana, and in other Western States, looks almost nothing like the national party. If you really think I'm lying look at Freudenhal in Wyoming or Knowles in Alaska. Western Democrats are Moderate Libertarians not the leftist that dominate the party.

3.) The "dem pockets" in Montana are mining areas and, just ask our good friend Al, almost all mining areas go for Democrats by big margins, seeing as they are leftist Populists basically old labor. Those pockets aren't growing and have actually shrunk for many years as the mines close or become smaller.

4.) I have a hard time seeing how Bayh could make Montana a swing state. It might have a chance with a more Libertarian or, possibly, a slightly Populist Western Democrat but not with a Moderate Midwesterner. Just because a place has a Democrat for governor doesn't mean its a swing state otherwise Alaska, until 2002, and Wyoming would be in that column.

[phk]

Clinton made Bush's 2nd strongest 1988 state, a swing state.

So anything can happen.

[AuH2O]

Correction, Perot made it a "swing" state.

[phk]

I guess you might be correct.

But, I'd say it was a natural movement, 1992 was the first time the Northeast truly rejected the GOP.