Which state will be the "Ohio" of 2008?

[Mr. Morden]

Obviously, it's really early, and we don't even know who the candidates are yet, but what is this forum for if not irresponsible speculation? 

If you had to offer your best guess as to which state will represent the political center of gravity in 2008--where, if the election is basically a tie, the outcome of this state will decide it (a la Florida in '00 and Ohio in '04)--what would your guess be?

Obviously, it depends at least a little on who the candidates are, but I actually think we can make a reasonable guess even without knowing that.  My guess is that if Warner is NOT the Democratic nominee, then the ranking of the swing states (from most Democratic to most Republican) will be:

MI<PA<NH<NM<WI<NV<IA<CO<OH<FL<VA (with all the other states going pretty much as you'd expect)

If that's how it went, then (assuming my math is correct), if the Democrats won Iowa and everything to its left, and the GOP won CO and everything to its right, then it would be a 269-269 tie.  And so I guess CO and IA would collectively be the "Ohio" of 2008, with the election being most likely to swing on the outcome of those two states.

If Warner WAS the Dem nominee, then Virginia could quite possibly swing as far left (or rather, as pro-Warner) as Michigan and Pennsylvania, which (assuming my math is correct) would make Wisconsin the political center of gravity.  That is, with VA in the Dem. column, the GOP would need to get at least WI and either NV or IA, plus CO and everything to the right of it in order to win.

I don't think anyone else would shift the swing state rankings as much as Warner.  That is, I doubt Gore or Edwards can move TN or NC as far left as CO or IA are, or that Giuliani could move NY as far right as those states either.  And folks like McCain and Allen would simply be making already Republican leaning states even more Republican.

Thoughts?  Does anyone want to offer alternative rankings?

[adam]

I'll take a guess and say Pennsylvania.

[Frodo]

If the two apparent front-runners (Hillary Clinton and John McCain) win the nominations of their respective parties, then I expect either Oregon or Wisconsin (or both) to be the pivotal states on which either nominee's presidential ambitions would rest. 

[Gustaf]

Given a close election, I think it'll be either Florida or Ohio. I'm currently leaning towards Florida, because it's bigger and seems to have more of a pro-Democrat trend (Ohio was mostly due to economic circumstances)

[Inmate Trump]

Virginia?

[MasterJedi]

It'll probably still be Ohio.

[Reaganfan]

Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington if McCain is the nominee.

[Mr. Morden]

Does anyone else want to try offering their best guess at the exact ordering of the swing states in '08, from which one will be most Democratic to which one most Republican, as I did with MI<PA<NH<NM<WI<NV<IA<CO<OH<FL<VA?  Your answers are interesting, but just saying, for example, "Wisconsin", doesn't indicate *why* you think it would be Wisconsin that would sit at the political center of gravity, rather than just Ohio again.  Is it because, say, Colorado and Nevada are moving left so fast, that they'll be left of Wisconsin by the next election?  Or maybe because Wisconsin will be right of Ohio by '08?

[MODU]

Virginia?

I would say VA if the race comes down between Warner and Allen.  But beyond that, the only other state I could probably think of would be New Mexico (but being so small, it might not be a state worth debating over depending how the rest of the EVs fall).

[Alcon]

Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington if McCain is the nominee.

If a state won by Kerry by 7 points while Bush won by 2 is in play, who cares what state is Ohio?  Obviously, the assumption here is that the election is close and a state like Ohio would actually matter.  If Washington is in play, it's probably not a very close election.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Call me crazy but a Guilliani, McCain or Hillary candidacy would put NJ in play

[auburntiger]

Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington if McCain is the nominee.

If a state won by Kerry by 7 points while Bush won by 2 is in play, who cares what state is Ohio?  Obviously, the assumption here is that the election is close and a state like Ohio would actually matter.  If Washington is in play, it's probably not a very close election.

What Republican candidates can carry Washington?

I think the "Ohio" will be Wisconsin. WI has been THE state with the tightest margin of victory for two elections now. Just the slightest breeze could push that one into the Republican column

[Mr. Morden]

Call me crazy but a Guilliani, McCain or Hillary candidacy would put NJ in play

Again, as Alcon said, I'm really asking about which 1 or 2 states are most likely to decide the election if it's very close.  Do you really think Giuliani or McCain would do better in NJ than in Ohio or Wisconsin or Iowa?  If not, then I don't see the scenario where NJ decides the election.  If a Republican is winning NJ, than he's already won the election nationally, and doesn't really need NJ.  That is, assuming there isn't a massive electoral shift between the last couple of elections and '08.

[Lincoln Republican]

Massachusetts and Idaho.

Sorry, I had to throw that in.

[opebo]

More like this:

WI<NH<NM<NV<OH<IA<CO<MO<VA<FL

With the dividing line somewhere between Iowa and Missouri.

[Gustaf]

The closest state last time was Wisconsin. And the state closest to the average was Nevada. Neither of those was "the Ohio of 2004" as what we're talking about is not that, but a state of CONSIDERABLE SIZE which is very close, so that the winner of that state seems likely to win the election regardless of the out-come in other close states. In 2004 this was the case: while New Mexico, Wisconsin, Iowa and New Hampshire were all close and went 2-2, Ohio decided it. Had Ohio swung the election would have tilted. Looking at it from that perspective, Ohio and Florida are the only big states likely to be that close next time around (Pennsylvania or Michigan being close would mean an assured GOP victory).

I expect New Hampshire to remain on the Democratic side, Nevada might come over to the Democratic side. New Mexico, Wisconsin and Iowa will probably remain pretty much dead centre. Colorado will become very close as well. Virginia will be closer than last time, but not closer then the above mentioned states.

And, of course, it all depends on the candidates.

[Mr. Morden]

More like this:

WI<NH<NM<NV<OH<IA<CO<MO<VA<FL

With the dividing line somewhere between Iowa and Missouri.

It's possible that my math is off, but I think in that scenario, Ohio would still mark the tipping point.  If the Dems won everything to the left of Ohio (that is, win all the states they did in 2004, plus NM and NV), they'd be at 262 electoral votes.  If you then add Ohio, they win.  So Ohio would mark the political center of gravity.

[Mr. Morden]

The closest state last time was Wisconsin. And the state closest to the average was Nevada. Neither of those was "the Ohio of 2004" as what we're talking about is not that, but a state of CONSIDERABLE SIZE which is very close, so that the winner of that state seems likely to win the election regardless of the out-come in other close states.

In saying that Ohio represented the political center of gravity in 2004, what I meant is that if Kerry had won all the states where he did better than he did in Ohio, plus Ohio itself, he would win.  If Bush had won all the states where he did better than he did in Ohio, plus Ohio itself, he would win.  That is, if you rank all the states in order of the margin between the candidates, Ohio is the one that leads to either candidate crossing the magic 270.  It's true that this is more likely to be a big state than a small state.  But as I showed in my original post, that doesn't necessarily have to be the case.  If CO and NV swing to the left of OH in 2008, then the political center of gravity would shift away from OH, possibly to states like CO and IA.

[TommyC1776]

More like this:

WI<NH<NM<NV<OH<IA<CO<MO<VA<FL

With the dividing line somewhere between Iowa and Missouri.

why do the states have > or <?

[Mr. Morden]

It's just a way of signifying the ranking of Democratic margin of victory vs. Republican margin of victory.  The further left in the list you go, the better the Democratic candidate is predicted to do, and the further right, the better the GOP candidate is predicted to do.  "<" is just a marker to separate the state names.  You could just as easily use any other symbol, or just blank spaces, though a single blank space might be less readable, as the names would blur together.

[MarkWarner08]

Is Ohio the next Ohio? Seriously, it depends upon the nominee.

[Mr. Morden]

I actually *don't* think it depends much on who the nominees are.  I put CO and IA at the center of the spectrum in '08, and think pretty much the same states will have greater or lesser margins than those two for each party's candidates, regardless of who the candidates are.  The only big difference would be in the nominees' home states, so someone like Warner or Vilsack might change things.

Remember, Ohio was being touted as the likely "Florida of 2004" well before it was clear that Kerry would be the Democratic nominee.

[ottermax]

I can't guess this until closer to 2008. The midterm elections haven't even occured yet, so there is the possibility that Idaho and Rhode Island become swing states.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Frankly, ID comes into play in the near future only if Jesus himself is the Dem nominee. Mind you those "blesssed are the meek" "blessed are the peacemaker" comments will come to bite him in the backside. Especially from those who want to turn international diplomacy into a dick measuring contest.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Especially from those who want to turn international diplomacy into a dick measuring contest.

Better than those that want to turn international diplomacy into a dick sucking contest.