Which of these 2012 Dem states are the most likely to go GOP in 2016?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:18:16 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Which of these 2012 Dem states are the most likely to go GOP in 2016?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Which 2012 Dem state is the most likely to go GOP in 2016?
#1
Oregon
 
#2
Washington
 
#3
New Mexico
 
#4
California
 
#5
Illinois
 
#6
New York
 
#7
Vermont
 
#8
Minnesota
 
#9
Maine
 
#10
Washington D.C (HA NO)
 
#11
Delaware
 
#12
Maryland
 
#13
New Jersey
 
#14
Connecticut
 
#15
Rhode Island
 
#16
Massachusetts
 
#17
Michigan
 
#18
Hawaii
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 71

Author Topic: Which of these 2012 Dem states are the most likely to go GOP in 2016?  (Read 2515 times)
Former Senator Haslam2020
Haslam2020
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,345
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 24, 2015, 07:10:24 PM »

Which ones?
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,509
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 24, 2015, 07:55:50 PM »

This list is notable by the absence of New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.  Tongue
Logged
buddy36
Rookie
**
Posts: 41
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 24, 2015, 10:17:41 PM »

This list is notable by the absence of New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.  Tongue
Because those are obviously going to flip so he does not needed to mention those states
Logged
Fritz
JLD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 24, 2015, 10:21:55 PM »

Sorry guys, Minnesota ain't flippin' this year.  From that list, Michigan is most likely.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 24, 2015, 10:46:44 PM »

The Silent Majority stands with King!
Logged
Suburbia
bronz4141
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,684
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 24, 2015, 11:07:54 PM »

Michigan, it could happen with Kasich, Rubio, or even Trump.
Logged
Former Senator Haslam2020
Haslam2020
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,345
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 24, 2015, 11:12:38 PM »

This list is notable by the absence of New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.  Tongue

yes but I'm trying to get states which arent considered battleground
Logged
EliteLX
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,029
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.64, S: 0.85

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 24, 2015, 11:50:03 PM »

I'm going to go out and say Michigan over Minnesota. A bit more predominant white blue collar working class demographic. Neither have a dream of flipping in 11 months, but in the '16 environment and conditions, MI flips before MN. Easily.

On another topic, Merry Christmas to all my Atlas friends. God bless.
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 25, 2015, 12:02:37 AM »

This list is notable by the absence of New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.  Tongue

yes but I'm trying to get states which arent considered battleground

NH isn't battleground.

To the real world it is.
Logged
Ebsy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 25, 2015, 01:31:01 AM »

Wow some of you people are dumber than dirt.
Logged
Flake
Flo
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,688
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 25, 2015, 01:49:29 AM »

It's obviously going to be D.C.
Logged
Hillary pays minimum wage
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 716
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: December 25, 2015, 03:01:37 AM »

Minnesota or Maine, but none of them will likely be Republican.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 25, 2015, 05:00:37 AM »

Minnesota, the closest of these states in 2008,  could be the closest of these if the 2008 pattern holds. It will be 52-47 in a bare Republican win and 57-42 in a Clinton landslide.

Logged
President Johnson
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,586
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.70


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: December 25, 2015, 06:31:29 AM »

Wisconsin; maybe if Walker is VP.

Who voted DC??
Logged
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,480
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 25, 2015, 10:59:23 AM »

Michigan or Minnesota
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 25, 2015, 12:48:37 PM »

This list is notable by the absence of New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.  Tongue

yes but I'm trying to get states which arent considered battleground

NH isn't battleground.

To the real world it is.

No wonder that Republicans can't win presidential elections in the real world then.

You can consistently lose a battleground state by a close margin and it can still be a battleground.  Face it, NH is usually pretty close, Republicans have won several races there over the last 20 years and it'll be contested because of this.  Merry Christmas.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,783
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 25, 2015, 03:28:54 PM »

GOP arent winning any of these just like Dems arent gonna win others. Oregon was a battleground, but it looks like Trump can win NH. That will be the only stste he can come close to winning.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: December 25, 2015, 06:18:36 PM »

Utterly dumbfounded that MI has any votes, let alone is leading MN. Do the math people. Angry
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,109
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 26, 2015, 04:22:23 AM »

Utterly dumbfounded that MI has any votes, let alone is leading MN. Do the math people. Angry

Here's a sample of their math:


2016 UNITED STATES PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
U.S. Popular Vote: Trump 62% | Clinton 37%
Whites (80)Sad Trump 66% | Clinton 33%
All Remaining Non-Whites (20)Sad Trump 47% | Clinton 51%


Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: December 26, 2015, 11:03:15 AM »

Utterly dumbfounded that MI has any votes, let alone is leading MN. Do the math people. Angry

Minnesota by default as the closest of those states in 2008. It just doesn't swing much in overall vote. It does swing severely against Republicans with respect to the national average in Republican blowouts -- as the second-worst state for Nixon in 1972 and the worst for Reagan in 1984. (It did go R+ in one of the Eisenhower elections, which says much about Ike). It was near the middle of the pack for Obama in 2008, though.

Voting habits are very rigid in Minnesota. The state just does not swing.

...Barack Obama is the most polarizing of Presidential nominees ever, winning some states as if a Democratic version of Reagan in 1984 and losing as if the second coming of George McGovern in some others. It is hard to see anyone with such a divide in voting for him and against him ever happening again. 
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: December 26, 2015, 11:17:10 AM »

Utterly dumbfounded that MI has any votes, let alone is leading MN. Do the math people. Angry

Here's a sample of their math:


2016 UNITED STATES PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
U.S. Popular Vote: Trump 62% | Clinton 37%
Whites (80)Sad Trump 66% | Clinton 33%
All Remaining Non-Whites (20)Sad Trump 47% | Clinton 51%

Anyone who expects any Presidential nominee to win more than 60% of the vote is nuts at this stage. One can make a mathematical model that can predict anything... but even if one uses mathematical models to predict something absurd, the problem is not with the mathematics.

Boundary conditions are relevant. I played games with one of the models and I did not see Democrats winning in any Southern states other than VA, FL, and NC before Democrats picked up Indiana... A Democrat who gets 33% of the white vote in Mississippi is going to win Mississippi.

2008 and 2012 were freaks because Barack Obama was what he is. On the other hand, he won, and he showed that Democrats can largely write off rural areas with impunity. He knew how to get mass audiences available in urban and suburban areas (the distinction between cities and suburbs is weakening).
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: December 26, 2015, 11:17:53 AM »

Utterly dumbfounded that MI has any votes, let alone is leading MN. Do the math people. Angry

Minnesota by default as the closest of those states in 2008. It just doesn't swing much in overall vote. It does swing severely against Republicans with respect to the national average in Republican blowouts -- as the second-worst state for Nixon in 1972 and the worst for Reagan in 1984. (It did go R+ in one of the Eisenhower elections, which says much about Ike). It was near the middle of the pack for Obama in 2008, though.

Voting habits are very rigid in Minnesota. The state just does not swing.

...Barack Obama is the most polarizing of Presidential nominees ever, winning some states as if a Democratic version of Reagan in 1984 and losing as if the second coming of George McGovern in some others. It is hard to see anyone with such a divide in voting for him and against him ever happening again. 

You know we've had an election since 2008, right?  I've never seen you cite a 2012 statistic, only 2008.
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: December 26, 2015, 11:41:33 AM »

Trump polls around 16% of Latinos....Romney won 27% and still lost.     The hispanic population has just gotten bigger since then.    Why the heck should we assume Trump will do this well?
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: December 26, 2015, 01:00:46 PM »

Utterly dumbfounded that MI has any votes, let alone is leading MN. Do the math people. Angry

Minnesota by default as the closest of those states in 2008. It just doesn't swing much in overall vote. It does swing severely against Republicans with respect to the national average in Republican blowouts -- as the second-worst state for Nixon in 1972 and the worst for Reagan in 1984. (It did go R+ in one of the Eisenhower elections, which says much about Ike). It was near the middle of the pack for Obama in 2008, though.

Voting habits are very rigid in Minnesota. The state just does not swing.

...Barack Obama is the most polarizing of Presidential nominees ever, winning some states as if a Democratic version of Reagan in 1984 and losing as if the second coming of George McGovern in some others. It is hard to see anyone with such a divide in voting for him and against him ever happening again. 

Pborower, that isn't entirely untrue, but we're comparing MN to Michigan! MICHIGAN!!!
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: December 28, 2015, 07:18:45 PM »

Minnesota.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.05 seconds with 15 queries.