What states should Republicans compete in that W never won?

[Mister Mets]

What are the states that Republican presidential candidates should try to compete for (assuming you want them to use their resources well) that George W Bush never won? That automatically makes these the states that the party hasn't won in more than twenty years.

There is some precedent for going after states where a party has little precedent for victory.

Obama was the first Democrat to win Virginia and Indiana since 1964. Jimmy Carter had been the last President to win North Carolina back in 1976.

When Bill Clinton won California in 1992, it was the first time any Democrat had won the state since LBJ in 1964. Connecticut hadn't gone to a Democrat since 1968.

Reagan's 1980 win in Massachusetts was the first time a Republican had won that state since 1956. George W Bush's 2004 win in Iowa was the first time a Republican won that state since Reagan's landslide reelection bid twenty years earlier.

[traininthedistance]

Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan (in decreasing order) are the obvious and only choices.

[WalterMitty]

wisconsin obviously.

depending on candidate and circumstances the gop *could* compete in pa, mi, nj...even oregon.

[Oak Hills]

Well, I suppose Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan are possibilities for the GOP, but I wouldn't say winning there is a strong possibility for it unless its candidate is winning by a lot nationally. New Jersey is of course a possibility if Christie is the nominee, and maybe even if it's someone else winning by a lot. Other than that I can't really think of any that are serious possibilities for them without a national landslide.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

PA, MI, WI, MN and OR

Had Romney's campaign been better run and organized, they would have all been competative.

[Stranger in a strange land]

PA, MI, WI, MN and OR

Had Romney's campaign been better run and organized, they would have all been competative.

except MN. The floor is artificially high because of fundies, but the state is overall pretty solidly liberal, and the MN-GOP has a very, very hard time winning a statewide election without help from the MIP.

[Asian Nazi]

Pennsylvania.  The Democrats might still have some room to fall in parts of the state, plus it's electorally rich and could offset the inevitable loss in VA.  If the Republicans can get a voter ID law passed there it could easily become a legit swing state with the right candidate.

[Maxwell]

Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Oregon are all Non-W states Republicans should go for. Maybe even Maine and Washington.

[Likely Voter]

Bush Jr. competed for 7 states that he never won (PA, WI, MI, MN, ME, OR,  WA)

Of those PA and WI seem like they should stay on the GOP list (both McCain and Romney competed for both). For the rest I think we will have to see how polling is and who the candidates are but I doubt OR or WA are returning to the GOP list just like I don't think the Dems are going to spend money in WV (like they did up until 2004).

And with all of these states if the GOP want to put them on the board they need to start early on building up a ground game and registering more of their kinds of voters. They cant just throw some money at them for advertising at the last minute like Romney did with PA.

[Statesman]

Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Oregon are all Non-W states Republicans should go for. Maybe even Maine and Washington.

Pennsylvania is a possibility for a Republican win, with a Christie or Huntsman-like candidate who is perceived as moderate, against a non-Hillary candidate in 2016. New Jersey is possible too in 2016 if Christie is the nominee, but only against someone other than Hillary.

Wisconsin and Minnesota are distant possibilities in a blowout, and again, only with a candidate perceived as a moderate who appeals to independents. Both would be difficult to pull off - Republicans haven't won Wisconsin since 1984 and haven't won Minnesota since 1972. Connecticut would be very difficult for the GOP to pull off and I don't see it happening in the near future.

Oregon seems to have moved a little further leftward and no longer seems like a potential pickup for Republicans. The only scenario I see making it possible is if there's a big enough third-party challenge to Democrats a la 2000, in which Nader almost won enough votes that would have gone to Gore for Bush to win the state. Michigan seems as unlikely to go GOP as Oregon - both had similar (and substantial) margins of victory for Obama in 2008 and 2012.

Maine seems unlikely to go back to the GOP - it hasn't been there since 1988. Governor LePage is very unpopular, and that may or may not translate to further dislike for the national GOP. If they ever want a chance, they'd need, again, a Christie or Huntsman candidate against a non-Hillary Democrat, but that might only get Maine down to 2004 / 2000 margins.

Washington - I live here. The only way for the GOP to win here is if you have a really moderate, almost non-partisan, pro-choice GOP candidate who's cool with same-sex marriage, and is running against a Democrat who causes severe problems or splits within the Democratic base. That's the only way a Republican could compete in Seattle / Western Washington. I mean, we wouldn't elect McKenna, which most of the GOP seems to think of as reasonably moderate - we still felt he was too conservative for us.

It's necessary to win western WA to win the state, and in western WA we're mostly a bunch of liberals of different variations. I don't foresee Washington going to the Republicans in the near future, unless the GOP becomes a more moderate or liberal party at some point, which I doubt will happen.

[memphis]

The problem for the Republicans in the Rust Belt is that people in those states expect to have middle class wages, something the Republican Party is dead set against.

[Napoleon]

If the Republicans can get a voter ID law passed there it could easily become a legit swing state with the right candidate.

I don't have a problem with voter ID laws, but how would they help Republicans? There's no evidence of that and saying that is basically saying that Democrats can't win an election where the identity of voters is verified I don't believe that.

[barfbag]

New Jersey
Washington
Oregon
Minnesota
Iowa
Wisconsin
Michigan
Pennsylvania
Delaware

[Stranger in a strange land]

If the Republicans can get a voter ID law passed there it could easily become a legit swing state with the right candidate.

I don't have a problem with voter ID laws, but how would they help Republicans? There's no evidence of that and saying that is basically saying that Democrats can't win an election where the identity of voters is verified I don't believe that.

The purpose of voter ID laws isn't to prevent voter fraud or even to verify that voters are actually eligible, but rather to intimidate poor and minority voters and keep them away from the polls altogether.

[barfbag]

If the Republicans can get a voter ID law passed there it could easily become a legit swing state with the right candidate.

I don't have a problem with voter ID laws, but how would they help Republicans? There's no evidence of that and saying that is basically saying that Democrats can't win an election where the identity of voters is verified I don't believe that.

The purpose of voter ID laws isn't to prevent voter fraud or even to verify that voters are actually eligible, but rather to intimidate poor and minority voters and keep them away from the polls altogether.

It sounds like Democrats have said things to lead you to conclude this. Well how about finger printing then paid for with tax dollars. That will solve it. Unless of course Democrats want to steal elections with illegal votes? Uh oh it sounds like the Republicans have said things to lead me to conclude what I've said. See how it goes both ways and it's not always one party is always right and one party is always wrong? There

[JRP1994]

In decreasing order of probable victory:

1) Pennsylvania
2) Wisconsin
3) ME-2
4) Minnesota
5) Michigan
6) Oregon

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

In order of priority:

To win:
Pennsylvania. Electoral vote rich, but a low ceiling state for Repubs. If they actually contest it next cycle, (unlike Romney's futile push) they have a fair chance of shattering the ceiling.
Wisconsin  seems like a decent opportunity, but it will require a reverse Obama situation (300+ EVs for R cand) right now. Statewide, Republicans are able to win, as shown by Scott Walker. GWB nearly got it twice. Before the 2012 election I would have said this would easily be the most likely.

Those are the only states the Republicans have a shot of winning in the near future. But they could attempt to forge inroads in states like Minnesota and Michigan.

States like Oregon and Washington are not just too Democratic to win-they are too liberal to consider voting for a Republican at all, moderate or not. Same case with Minnesota.

Maine, I don't know. It's a strange case at the state level, and by looking at Paul LePage and Susan Collins we get no indicators as to how the national GOP can function in a state like that. Races seem to be much more localized there, hence why there are no statewide Democrats, and how Independents do so well.

As for Connecticut and my home state of New Jersey, both of them are long shots for any national Republican and I do not think Chris Christie, with all of his popularity here, could pull it off. I suspect that a Republican could potentially form inroads over time, and tap into the suburban vote. Connecticut would be easier as it is more vanilla in terms of voter diversity, while NJ has places like Newark.

Basically, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Everything else is a pipe dream, at least for the near future.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If the Republicans can get a voter ID law passed there it could easily become a legit swing state with the right candidate.

I don't have a problem with voter ID laws, but how would they help Republicans? There's no evidence of that and saying that is basically saying that Democrats can't win an election where the identity of voters is verified I don't believe that.

The purpose of voter ID laws isn't to prevent voter fraud or even to verify that voters are actually eligible, but rather to intimidate poor and minority voters and keep them away from the polls altogether.

Then how was it that Obama was able to win IN and make GA so much closer in 2008? Those were the first to enact them if I am not mistaken and in that election.

If anything the voter ID laws have led to increases in performance, as minority groups and Democratic operatives are motivated to go to the polls and organized to get revenge on those who they see having a perceived desire to disenfranchise them. Certainly it helped in 2012, which is why the Democrats are hard at work to spin the recent court rulings as yet another attempt to disenfranchise minority voters in the hopes that it will pay dividends in 2014.

[Minnesota Mike]

PA, MI, WI, MN and OR

Had Romney's campaign been better run and organized, they would have all been competative.

except MN. The floor is artificially high because of fundies, but the state is overall pretty solidly liberal, and the MN-GOP has a very, very hard time winning a statewide election without help from the MIP.

FWIW no Republican has gotten 50%+ in a statewide race in Minnesota since Arne Carlson got 63% in his race for governor in 1994 (Carlson was a moderate/Liberal for those of you who don't remember him).  Minnesota is fools gold for Republicans, the margin looks doable but the state is very inelastic and without a 3rd party candidate nearly unwinnable  for Republicans.

[Ogre Mage]

Washington State was mentioned several times.  Washington is among the most politically polarized states in the nation, giving the GOP an unshakable base of support east of the Cascades.  But the more populous liberal Puget Sound region (esp. King County) makes Washington exceedingly difficult to crack for statewide Republican candidates.  The national GOP brand is poison in those places.  The GOP has not won a governor or senate race in Washington State since 1994.

For a Republican Presidential candidate to win Washington State it would require either a GOP national landslide probably at least of the level of 1988 (although Bush I actually narrowly lost the state to Dukakis) or some sort of unforseen Black Swan event.  That is why Romney made no effort here.

[Minnesota Mike]

Pennsylvania.  The Democrats might still have some room to fall in parts of the state, plus it's electorally rich and could offset the inevitable loss in VA.  If the Republicans can get a voter ID law passed there it could easily become a legit swing state with the right candidate.

I am not a fan of voter ID laws, they seem more likely to disenfranchise eligible voters than to catch ineligible ones, but I honestly do not see them making a difference unless the race is extremely tight. I don't see PA being that tight at the presidential level.  

[badgate]

Maine, but it's so small that why bother

[pbrower2a]

In this order:

Pennsylvania -- the likely tipping-point state of 2016 if Colorado goes further D
Wisconsin -- very close in 2004
Michigan -- especially if the unions are destroyed
Illinois -- competitive due to the reversal of the Favorite Son effect.

Iowa and New Hampshire were one-time wins for Dubya, and they should be targeted -- especially Iowa, which is very similar to Wisconsin in its demographics. New Mexico is gone in anything other than a GOP landslide. Nevada is much the same as New Mexico except that Dubya won it twice.

Minnesota might be tempting, but it is the state that swings least. Oregon is probably in that category.

Connecticut and New Jersey are possible -- but only if the Republicans can brush off the extreme anti-intellectualism.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

I have categorized my opinions on the states into four tiers of difficulty

Fair chance, particularly with a good campaign
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin

Tough, but still winnable
Maine's 2nd district
Michigan
New Jersey, especially if Christie is the nominee

Tougher, but not impossible...
Minnesota
Oregon
Washington

Landslide-only territory
Connecticut
Illinois

[JRP1994]

In this order:

Pennsylvania -- the likely tipping-point state of 2016 if Colorado goes further D
Wisconsin -- very close in 2004
Michigan -- especially if the unions are destroyed
Illinois -- competitive due to the reversal of the Favorite Son effect.

Iowa and New Hampshire were one-time wins for Dubya, and they should be targeted -- especially Iowa, which is very similar to Wisconsin in its demographics. New Mexico is gone in anything other than a GOP landslide. Nevada is much the same as New Mexico except that Dubya won it twice.

Minnesota might be tempting, but it is the state that swings least. Oregon is probably in that category.

Connecticut and New Jersey are possible -- but only if the Republicans can brush off the extreme anti-intellectualism.

I agree, except for Illinois. Reversal of favorite son effect won't be enough:

1988: Bush +2.09% (Bush +7.72% nationally)
1992: Clinton +14.24% (Clinton +5.56% nationally)
1996: Clinton +17.51% (Clinton +8.51% nationally)
2000: Gore +12.20% (Gore +0.51% nationally)
2004: Kerry +10.34% (Bush +2.46% nationally)

Illinois hasn't been within 10-points since 1988, and that result shows a heavy Democratic lean, which has grown.