2012

[WalterMitty]

divide the states up into 5 groups of 10 states based on how they will (likely) be classified in the year 2012.

the groups are as follow...remember 10 states in each group, no more no less

solid dem
lean dem
swing
lean rep
solid rep

you can also do this excercise in a map format.

[Alcon]

That only will work if there are exactly 20 Republican states (half of them solid), exactly 20 Democratic states (half of them solid), and exactly 10 swing states.

[WalterMitty]

That only will work if there are exactly 20 Republican states (half of them solid), exactly 20 Democratic states (half of them solid), and exactly 10 swing states.

yes.

i want it nice and neat.

you can rank them within the group also.

[DanielX]

This doesn't work. I'd either have to divide it unevenly or give the democrats several states that would really be swing. I'll divide it unevenly (i'm a rebel!). No order within the group, either.

solid dem
New York
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Vermont
Maryland
Illinois
California
Washington
DC

lean dem
New Jersey
Delaware
Maine
Oregon
New Hampshire
Hawaii

swing
Nevada
New Mexico
Colorado
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Minnesota
Iowa
Wisconsin
Michigan
Virginia

lean rep
North Carolina
Tennessee
Arkansas
Arizona
Missouri
Florida
West Virginia

solid rep
Utah
Idaho
Wyoming
North Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Texas
Mississippi
Alabama
Louisiana
Georgia
South Carolina
Montana
Indiana
Kentucky
Alaska

[tarheel-leftist85]

[True Democrat]

I used seven groups, but here you go:

[Jake]

[WalterMitty]

solid dem:

1. vermont
2. massachusetts
3. rhode island
4. new york
5. hawaii
6. california
7 washington
8. maine
9. minnesota
10. maryland

lean dem:
11. connecticut
12. oregon
13. new hampshire
14. illinois
15. delaware
16. michigan
17. nevada
18. new mexico
19. colorado
20. iowa

tossup:
21. wisconisn
22. new jersey
23. pennsylvania
24. ohio
25. arizona
26. florida
27. virginia
28. missouri
29. arkansas
30. south dakota

lean gop:
31. montana
32. north carolina
33. georgia
34. alaska
35. louisiana
36. indiana
37. west virginia
38. north dakota
39. tennessee
40. mississippi

solid gop:
41. texas
42. wyoming
43. south carolina
44. oklahoma
45. kentucky
46. alabama
47. kansas
48. nebraska
49. idaho
50. utah

[tarheel-leftist85]

Not many ppl. followed your rules!  I tried to, but it's not easy (feel like it's to the Dems. advantage b/c we usually have to win fewer states to reach 270).
BTW, SD before NC!!!
(Maybe Herseth will run for pres.)

[Ben.]

My 2 cents worth…

Solid Dem 

California – Though that won’t last forever IMHO.
Illinois
Maryland
New York
Delaware
Rhode Island
Massachusetts
Connecticut
Vermont.
Hawaii
DC.

EV Total - 153

Lean Dem

Michigan
Maine
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Washington

EV Total - 51

Toss-Up

Arkansas     
Missouri
Iowa
Wisconsin
Pennsylvania
Ohio
West Virginia
Oregon
New Mexico
Arizona
Colorado
Nevada
Florida

EV Total - 153

Lean Rep

Montana
South Dakota
Georgia
Tennessee
Louisiana
North Carolina
Virginia
Kentucky

Ev Total - 77

Solid Rep

Texas
Utah
Indiana
Wyoming
Alaska
Idaho
Oklahoma
Kansas
Nebraska
North Dakota
Mississippi
Alabama
South Carolina

EV Total -  104 

 
 

[Alcon]

It looks like Democrats have two views of where they will make their gains - one, the frontier states (MT, WY, SD, CO, NV) and the other the Mississippi River states (MO, AR, IA) and/or rustbelt states (OH, WV, PA).

[True Democrat]

It looks like Democrats have two views of where they will make their gains - one, the frontier states (MT, WY, SD, CO, NV) and the other the Mississippi River states (MO, AR, IA) and/or rustbelt states (OH, WV, PA).

With the frontier states I would include the Eastern Seaboard (Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, maybe even South Carolina).  I think these two go together because they are both getting immigrants from the Northeast and the Rust Belt.

[12th Doctor]

I used seven groups, but here you go:

This is the most likely map I have seen so far.  All things being equal though, I think New Jersey and Connecticut will be more competetive.

[True Democrat]

I used seven groups, but here you go:

This is the most likely map I have seen so far.  All things being equal though, I think New Jersey and Connecticut will be more competetive.

I agree with you on New Jersey.  If it were today's map, I would put New Jersey under the strong Democratic column, but now it's under the kind of strong column.  New Jersey was a 16 point margin in 2000, and a 6 point margin in 2004.  In 2008, I think it will be like a 10 point margin, and in 2012 it will be something like 6-8 point margin.  2004 was just the 9/11 effect, but I think there is a small Republican trend there.  Connecticut, however, I would disagree.  I think it's trending slightly Democratic.  By 2012, I think any Democrat would be able to garner at least 57% of the vote there easily.

[Alcon]

It looks like Democrats have two views of where they will make their gains - one, the frontier states (MT, WY, SD, CO, NV) and the other the Mississippi River states (MO, AR, IA) and/or rustbelt states (OH, WV, PA).

With the frontier states I would include the Eastern Seaboard (Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, maybe even South Carolina).  I think these two go together because they are both getting immigrants from the Northeast and the Rust Belt.

I'm not sure why one would include the southern Atlantic seaboard states with the frontier, unless you mean Rust Belt states instead.

Frankly, as much as I would love to see Montana and South Dakota blue, the Rust Belt is a much more reasonable proposition.

[True Democrat]

It looks like Democrats have two views of where they will make their gains - one, the frontier states (MT, WY, SD, CO, NV) and the other the Mississippi River states (MO, AR, IA) and/or rustbelt states (OH, WV, PA).

With the frontier states I would include the Eastern Seaboard (Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, maybe even South Carolina).  I think these two go together because they are both getting immigrants from the Northeast and the Rust Belt.

I'm not sure why one would include the southern Atlantic seaboard states with the frontier, unless you mean Rust Belt states instead.

Frankly, as much as I would love to see Montana and South Dakota blue, the Rust Belt is a much more reasonable proposition.

I think the Eastern Seaboard and the Mountain West are fairly similar.  They both have a lot of immigration from the Rust Belt, causing them to develop similar politically in the future.  That's just my thinking anyway.

[12th Doctor]

It looks like Democrats have two views of where they will make their gains - one, the frontier states (MT, WY, SD, CO, NV) and the other the Mississippi River states (MO, AR, IA) and/or rustbelt states (OH, WV, PA).

With the frontier states I would include the Eastern Seaboard (Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, maybe even South Carolina).  I think these two go together because they are both getting immigrants from the Northeast and the Rust Belt.

I'm not sure why one would include the southern Atlantic seaboard states with the frontier, unless you mean Rust Belt states instead.

Frankly, as much as I would love to see Montana and South Dakota blue, the Rust Belt is a much more reasonable proposition.

I think the Eastern Seaboard and the Mountain West are fairly similar.  They both have a lot of immigration from the Rust Belt, causing them to develop similar politically in the future.  That's just my thinking anyway.

This is kinda counter-intuitive.  The people leaving the "rust-belt" states will likely be wealthier people.  The people who stay will either  have decent middle-class jobs, or be stuck there because of poverty.  I don't think this is going to happen, but using the model you propose, it is the most likely outcome.  Therefore, the people who leave are more likely to be libertarian minded individuals (also because of the fact that people who don't feel a connection to their roots, ie Libertarians, are more likely to leave) while those who stay are more likely to be more populist minded, with people continuing to split on economic and social issues.

I accept your outcome, because I think that the Democrats are going to start winning over more of the libertarians as time goes on.

[12th Doctor]

All things being equal, I think this is what the electoral map will look like in 2012.  I don't believe, however, that all things will be nearly equal.  Also, I think that 2012 will also be the breaking point of the current alignment and start our country off in a totally different direction.  I'll explain in what I invision happening over the next couple of days.

[True Democrat]

All things being equal, I think this is what the electoral map will look like in 2012.  I don't believe, however, that all things will be nearly equal.  Also, I think that 2012 will also be the breaking point of the current alignment and start our country off in a totally different direction.  I'll explain in what I invision happening over the next couple of days.

Pretty good, though I think Michigan is trending Republican.  Also, Illinois might have a very small Republican trend, but not like the one you put in there.  I also agree that Georgia will be getting closer, but I don't think it will be that changed by 2012.  New Mexico is a hard state to predict.  It all depends on how Hispanics trend.  I put it at slightly lean Dem, but your version seems completely plausible also.  As a side note, Pennsylvania will be a toss up if not slightly leaning towards the Republicans by 2012.

[Smash255]

All things being equal, I think this is what the electoral map will look like in 2012.  I don't believe, however, that all things will be nearly equal.  Also, I think that 2012 will also be the breaking point of the current alignment and start our country off in a totally different direction.  I'll explain in what I invision happening over the next couple of days.

Pretty good, though I think Michigan is trending Republican.  Also, Illinois might have a very small Republican trend, but not like the one you put in there.  I also agree that Georgia will be getting closer, but I don't think it will be that changed by 2012.  New Mexico is a hard state to predict.  It all depends on how Hispanics trend.  I put it at slightly lean Dem, but your version seems completely plausible also.  As a side note, Pennsylvania will be a toss up if not slightly leaning towards the Republicans by 2012.

I don't seee much change in PA from slight Dem lean by 2012.  The Republican drifts in the wesy will continue to be canceled out by Dem shifts in the SE and the state as a whole willbbe little changed

[True Democrat]

All things being equal, I think this is what the electoral map will look like in 2012.  I don't believe, however, that all things will be nearly equal.  Also, I think that 2012 will also be the breaking point of the current alignment and start our country off in a totally different direction.  I'll explain in what I invision happening over the next couple of days.

Pretty good, though I think Michigan is trending Republican.  Also, Illinois might have a very small Republican trend, but not like the one you put in there.  I also agree that Georgia will be getting closer, but I don't think it will be that changed by 2012.  New Mexico is a hard state to predict.  It all depends on how Hispanics trend.  I put it at slightly lean Dem, but your version seems completely plausible also.  As a side note, Pennsylvania will be a toss up if not slightly leaning towards the Republicans by 2012.

I don't seee much change in PA from slight Dem lean by 2012.  The Republican drifts in the wesy will continue to be canceled out by Dem shifts in the SE and the state as a whole willbbe little changed

But look at the overall trend of Pennsylvania.

It was closer than New York in 1984.
Dukakis only lost it by two points.
Clinton only did slightly better than his national average in 1996.
Gore won it by 4.
Kerry won it by 2.5.

I think there is a slight trend to the Republicans there.

[TeePee4Prez]

All things being equal, I think this is what the electoral map will look like in 2012.  I don't believe, however, that all things will be nearly equal.  Also, I think that 2012 will also be the breaking point of the current alignment and start our country off in a totally different direction.  I'll explain in what I invision happening over the next couple of days.

Pretty good, though I think Michigan is trending Republican.  Also, Illinois might have a very small Republican trend, but not like the one you put in there.  I also agree that Georgia will be getting closer, but I don't think it will be that changed by 2012.  New Mexico is a hard state to predict.  It all depends on how Hispanics trend.  I put it at slightly lean Dem, but your version seems completely plausible also.  As a side note, Pennsylvania will be a toss up if not slightly leaning towards the Republicans by 2012.

I don't seee much change in PA from slight Dem lean by 2012.  The Republican drifts in the wesy will continue to be canceled out by Dem shifts in the SE and the state as a whole willbbe little changed

But look at the overall trend of Pennsylvania.

It was closer than New York in 1984.
Dukakis only lost it by two points.
Clinton only did slightly better than his national average in 1996.
Gore won it by 4.
Kerry won it by 2.5.

I think there is a slight trend to the Republicans there.

1984 was an anomaly being Western PAs economy was nearing Depression status.  However the economy improved there and their socially conservative colors are now showing.  Southeastern PA now has unprecedented Democratic growth in areas that during Reagan were solidly Republican.  True, we slid compared to national averages, but I'd still say we are slightly more Dem than the average and the "Southeast 5" determines Pennsylvania's outcome.

[Cubby]

I used seven groups, but here you go:

This is the most likely map I have seen so far.  All things being equal though, I think New Jersey and Connecticut will be more competetive.

Why do you think Connecticut will be more competitive, Supersoulty? 2004 was a fluke because of security concerns, otherwise CT has been one of the biggest Dem-trending states in the country.

[12th Doctor]

I used seven groups, but here you go:

This is the most likely map I have seen so far.  All things being equal though, I think New Jersey and Connecticut will be more competetive.

Why do you think Connecticut will be more competitive, Supersoulty? 2004 was a fluke because of security concerns, otherwise CT has been one of the biggest Dem-trending states in the country.

I think there is an over-all trend in the suburbs that everyone needs to watch for, and it is not an overtly political one.

As the cities have expanded, the central city has boomed, declined, and now, in many places (esspecially New York) is enjoying another boom period (it is now considered very fashionable to live in the city, if you can afford it).  At the same time, the suburbs have continued to balloon further out.  The inner-suburbs, which were once fashsionable in the 1920'-50's are now expieriencing many of the problems that were once associated with the Central City, because they lack the infrastructure and vast amounts of wealth the inner-cities enjoy, and many of the people who once lived in the Central City are now being pushed out of there by property values that are once again on the rise.

This includes both lower-middle class white families and urban minorities.  This trend is most noticable in places like Newark, Patterson and Camden, which have all seen rapid decline in the past 20 years.

If what I think will happen, eventually, happens, then all of the areas where this occures (New Jersey and Conn. being the biggest) will start to drift towards the GOP.  The reason is, Republicans have made rapid advances with the White middle-class (lower, middle and, to a lesser extent upper), thus, those areas, in particular will see a noticable trend as is.  However, there is more at work here.  The movement of high crime to the inner-ring suburbs will increase the pro-law and order/pro-populist sentiment of those living in the middle and outter ring areas, which will cause them to go more steadily Republican. 

Also, in the Northeast, there has been a long standing animosity between blacks who have been in their area since prior to the Great Depression, and those who are new comers.  The well-established blacks think (and rightly so in many cases) that "new-comers" are largely the cause of many of the problems in the black community.  I'm not just supposing here, this is a big issue in Erie, and else where.  There is a clear divide forming in the black community.  As more of these "established blacks" start to lose their anti-Republican prejudice, they will come to realize that they have quite a bit in common with the Republicans on many issues, most noticably social issues.

New Jersey and Conn. have all of the factors I mentioned, in abundance.  Thus, my prediction.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

To be honest... I'm not sure what the map will look like in 2006 (not a Presidential year but you know what I mean) or 2008, let alone 2012.
I do have an idea of possible outcomes though; will post tomorrow.