Will a winner ever carry fewer than 23 states?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 26, 2024, 01:50:20 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 100% pro-life no matter what)
  Will a winner ever carry fewer than 23 states?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Will a winner ever carry fewer than 23 states?  (Read 1145 times)
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,679
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 02, 2020, 06:04:51 PM »
« edited: December 02, 2020, 06:09:38 PM by Skill and Chance »

That's the record since we had 50 states (Carter 1976 and Kennedy 1960*).  2020 was 25/25 and 2012 was 26/24, so we are clearly trending that way in narrow Democratic wins.  I think it could happen if a future Democratic nominee wins Texas and collapses in the NE?  This is a theoretical 18 state 271/267 EC win, and it becomes a bigger win after reapportionment.




*There was a joint Democratic slate in Alabama in 1960 that included some Kennedy electors and some unpledged electors, but the Democratic slate unambiguously won.

Logged
DabbingSanta
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,679
United States
P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2020, 10:06:29 AM »

A candidate could win with just 11 electorally rich states — California, Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey.  It will never happen in our current environment, but it's theoretically possible.


Logged
TheElectoralBoobyPrize
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,528


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2020, 11:48:24 PM »

If Gore had won just one more state, he would've been elected with just 21 states (plus DC).

Logged
Nightcore Nationalist
Okthisisnotepic.
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,827


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 04, 2020, 02:20:32 PM »

Razor thin D win with just 20 states.

Logged
ultraviolet
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -3.22

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2020, 04:14:06 PM »

Actually plausible 20-30 map:



I’d say it’s more likely than not that a winner will carry less than 23 states in the next 20 years
Logged
Alcibiades
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,885
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -6.96

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 04, 2020, 05:07:31 PM »

Actually plausible 20-30 map:



I’d say it’s more likely than not that a winner will carry less than 23 states in the next 20 years

Switch NV for ME or NH and I agree.
Logged
Non Swing Voter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,181


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 04, 2020, 06:31:05 PM »

I don't see Michigan and Pennsylvania becoming as Republican as those maps suggest.  Trump was a good fit for those states and without someone like him turning out rural voters in massive numbers I don't see how Republicans win states like that while they're losing TX/GA/AZ. 

If anything, 2020 showed that even with peak turnout in Republican areas it's too difficult for them to win those states.  Unless the working assumption is that educated/UMC suburbs around Philly, Grand Rapids, etc. start flipping back to Republicans but I don't see that happening in the current client and if they did it suggests that Dems wouldn't be winning TX/AZ/GA.
Logged
The Houstonian
alexk2796
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 04, 2020, 11:52:20 PM »

Given the Democrats' increased dependence on urban and suburban voters (which are mostly concentrated in large states), they could very realistically do this, especially if they manage to flip Texas and retain Georgia and Pennsylvania in future elections.
Logged
EastwoodS
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,858


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 05, 2020, 02:56:33 AM »

Given the Democrats' increased dependence on urban and suburban voters (which are mostly concentrated in large states), they could very realistically do this, especially if they manage to flip Texas and retain Georgia and Pennsylvania in future elections.
This won’t happen if Trump isn’t on the ballot. The suburbs will swing back. You can’t say that low propensity Biden voters will keep showing up while low Propensity Trump voters won’t. That biased and misleading.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,679
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 05, 2020, 11:27:59 AM »

Given the Democrats' increased dependence on urban and suburban voters (which are mostly concentrated in large states), they could very realistically do this, especially if they manage to flip Texas and retain Georgia and Pennsylvania in future elections.

Pennsylvania seems pretty gone after Biden though? 

The real question is if places like AK/KS/NE keep swinging left fast enough to become top tier competitive by the time Texas does and if the GOP eventually succeeds in flipping some New England states. 
Logged
ultraviolet
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -3.22

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 05, 2020, 11:34:45 AM »

Given the Democrats' increased dependence on urban and suburban voters (which are mostly concentrated in large states), they could very realistically do this, especially if they manage to flip Texas and retain Georgia and Pennsylvania in future elections.

Pennsylvania seems pretty gone after Biden though? 

The real question is if places like AK/KS/NE keep swinging left fast enough to become top tier competitive by the time Texas does and if the GOP eventually succeeds in flipping some New England states. 

How is Pennsylvania gone? Philly’s huge suburbs will keep it competitive for quite some time, it’s most certainly not gone.

And KS/NE aren’t going to be as competitive as PA for a while, also they aren’t very big prizes. AK maybe. Either way, those states won’t be a core part of Ds path to victory in the near future
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 0.224 seconds with 13 queries.