Depressing reminder: The 2016 election will be decided by seven states — and Florida is an absolute must-win

posted at 8:01 pm on May 6, 2015 by Allahpundit

Just something I’ve been thinking about, sitting here playing with the RSLC’s new 2016 electoral map widget and drinking heavily. “Create Your Own Path to 270 Map,” the widget beckons. Yeah, go ahead. You go find yourself a path to 270.

Here’s what I’ve got.

270

Each blue state you see there has been blue in every presidential election since 1992, with the sole exception of New Mexico — which has been blue in every election since 1992 except for 2004. Obama won the state by 10 points three years ago against Romney and by 15 points seven years ago against McCain; if Hillary can’t protect an advantage like that and ends up losing the state next year, it would mean some sort of catastrophic national failure of her campaign that would make NM’s electoral votes irrelevant anyway. So let’s assume that she’s not a total disaster and manages to hold all of the states that Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Barack Obama have held (plus New Mexico). That’s … 247 EVs versus 206 “safe” EVs for the GOP, meaning that the election will boil down to just the seven gray states above. And if you can add at a second-grade level, you’ll realize that Florida’s 29 electoral votes would, in and of themselves, be enough to push Hillary over the top at 276 EVs. Myra Adams calls this the “1992 + 1988 + Florida” path to 270 for Democrats since it includes all of the states that have been blue in White House races since 1988 and 1992 plus the Sunshine State. (You don’t even need New Mexico’s five EVs to clinch the White House in this scenario.) In theory, Hillary Clinton could campaign exclusively in Florida for the next 18 months and still be the odds-on favorite to win the presidency.

An obvious lesson from that: The GOP’s almost certainly going to need a candidate from Florida on the ticket next year to maximize its chances of winning the state. Nominating Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio would achieve that. If neither one ends up as nominee, it’s almost a cinch given the math that Rubio will be the VP nominee. He and Susana Martinez are the obvious frontrunners since Republicans would love to have a Latino candidate on the ballot to blunt HIllary’s edge with that group, but Martinez comes from small, deep blue, probably unwinnable New Mexico whereas Rubio comes from large, purple, entire-election-hinges-on-this Florida. It’s a no-brainer. The other obvious lesson you draw is that it’d be awfully nice to have a midwestern candidate on the ticket, to give Ohio and Iowa an extra reason to tilt red. That means Scott Walker, a guy who could, in theory, expand the map by putting Wisconsin in play too. Even losing Wisconsin and winning Iowa would be a moral victory of sorts since Iowa, like New Mexico, has been reliably blue in every presidential contest since the late 80s except for 2004. I’m not lumping it in with NM as a safe blue state, though, partly because the Democrats’ margins of victory there have been smaller (Obama won it by just five points in 2012) and partly because the GOP has so many strong midwestern candidates potentially in the mix this year — Walker, of course, but maybe Kasich and Rick Snyder too — that it might be in play. Long story short, a Walker/Rubio or Rubio/Walker ticket would check lots of regional boxes, theoretically delivering Florida, Iowa, and Ohio and pushing the Republican EV totals on the map above to a healthy 259.

But that still leaves us 11 electoral votes short with just four states left on the table. Virginia alone, with 13 EVs, would do it. So would Colorado plus either Nevada or New Hampshire. And if you think having a hometown boy on the ticket would finally tilt Wisconsin back into the GOP’s column, then all bets are off: Adding Walker’s home state would put the GOP at 269, clinching no worse than a presidential tie and forcing Hillary to run the table in the remaining states just to get the election to the House of Representatives, which would of course decide it for the Republicans. There’s reason to think Wisconsin is winnable, too. Obama won it by 14 points in 2008 but Romney cut his margin in half in 2012. Putting Walker on the national ballot might be enough to win a close race there, a devastating blow to Hillary’s chances. Again, though, this assumes that the GOP is also winning Florida, Ohio, and Iowa, something that’s happened exactly once since Reagan stomped Mondale in 1984. (And the one time it happened, in 2004, was defined by the fallout to the biggest terror attack in American history.) You can safely say two things from all this. One: Walker and Rubio are probably your best play, in whatever order. And two: Hillary Clinton is still a strong favorite to win because that’s just the way the map is.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Yes it is true. Take away the minority vote and liberalism would still dominate. Just because Republicans hold a slight edge in white voters doesn’t mean the majority of whites are conservative. H*ll a lot elected Republicans aren’t conservatives.

lowandslow on May 6, 2015 at 9:49 PM

True, and yet even real conservatives today still would like to return to the liberal-dominated era (according to you) of the 1980s.

Pincher Martin on May 6, 2015 at 10:48 PM

The fact that a minority of states can elect the POTUS and thus enable the D’s to “rule” the majority of Red states is strong reason to support an Article V CoS so that states can recover their independence.

Charlemagne on May 6, 2015 at 8:12 PM

Yeah those stupid states have so many EVs just because they have all the people! Where’s the fairness in that?

Actually the system is weighted against populous states since all states get 2 EVs from senators. Consequently the vote of someone in deep red Wyoming has much more power than the vote of someone in California.

The big problem with our system is that each state is winner take all (with a couple exceptions). We have the ability now to easily go to a true popular vote system where every citizens vote has exactly the same weight…but for some reason we don’t just do it.

Tlaloc on May 6, 2015 at 11:08 PM

You think not having a college degree is a liability. That tells me you don’t get the MidWest at all.

Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum are both candidates who can appeal to the blue collar worker demographic and that is what we need. Not college graduates.

Of course Walker is by far superior to both of them.

Sackett on May 6, 2015 at 10:43 PM

I like Walker. I’m from WI and donated to his campaign when he was being recalled, but I still believe that people put value in an education. Until proven wrong I think it’ll be a liability.

I don’t see Rick Santorum carrying any state that every other GOP nominee would carry. He definitely isn’t going to appeal to swing voters.

Sarah Palin…she quit in the middle of her term. This isn’t about politics this is about principle. If someone can’t handle 1 term as governor of Alaska then they probably can’t handle the Oval Office. Sarah Palin is a popular conservative, but she wouldn’t make a good presidential or vice-presidential candidate.

publius75 on May 6, 2015 at 11:09 PM

So tell me what states have been blue since 1992, because Obama went after us on states that had gone our way since 1968. Keep ignoring these states and excluding them out of the path, so that “been blue since 1992″ statistic will be sure to apply in 2020 as well. There are ripe targets in those states. Pennsylvania and the Midwest are ready to be brought back into the fold. We just need a leader that can inspire like the last time they went our way.

Gingotts on May 6, 2015 at 9:27 PM

The only reason it worked for Obama to go after traditionally red states is because they weren’t red states anymore. Demographics had pushed them to be purple. The GOP can’t do that because they don’t have that advantage.

Tlaloc on May 6, 2015 at 11:16 PM

Ohio and Florida are the key, period

I’m feeling good about Ohio

FLA is a clusterfark and stresses me out to no end

The only real path to any kind of electoral viability nationally is to put the Midwest back in play– any combo of WI, PA, MI becoming competitive changes the math dramatically

Otherwise we have zero margin for error, in 2016 or ever again

thurman on May 6, 2015 at 11:16 PM

The United States is on it’s knees as it is. We lose this one to Clinton and the country has pretty much had it.

V7_Sport on May 6, 2015 at 11:18 PM

The United States is on it’s knees as it is. We lose this one to Clinton and the country has pretty much had it.

V7_Sport on May 6, 2015 at 11:18 PM

Given that you guys say this before every election can we just take it for granted? It just gets so damn tedious to see you repeat this mantra all zombie like every 4 years…

Tlaloc on May 6, 2015 at 11:21 PM

And the squishy push for jeb bush begins at HA. Not only will bush not win Florida (he is not beloved here) but the country does not want him or hillary. But if that’s the race then the idiots will vote for the first female president. It will be a massive percentage landslide with possibly a record low turnout. hillary could sweep the electoral college.

peacenprosperity on May 6, 2015 at 11:22 PM

The only reason it worked for Obama to go after traditionally red states is because they weren’t red states anymore. Demographics had pushed them to be purple. The GOP can’t do that because they don’t have that advantage.

Tlaloc on May 6, 2015 at 11:16 PM

The following six states of the Rust Belt – Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Illinois – once consistently voted for the GOP presidential candidate in six straight elections from 1968 to 1988. Of the thirty-six times those six states combined had an opportunity to vote Democrat during that period, they did so only six times (and half of those were in 1976).

There hasn’t been a lot of demographic change in those states since then (outside of Illinois, perhaps), but with the exception of Indiana they stopped voting for the GOP since 1992. NAFTA and Perot killed them. Yes, Democrats like Clinton voted for NAFTA, too, but they didn’t get killed by it like the GOP because they promised more goodies to the Rust Belt.

Those states have a combined 95 EVs. That’s more than Florida, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, New Mexico, and Nevada combined, which is almost every swing state outside of the Rust Belt.

Pincher Martin on May 6, 2015 at 11:41 PM

There hasn’t been a lot of demographic change in those states since then (outside of Illinois, perhaps),

Pincher Martin on May 6, 2015 at 11:41 PM

Why would you say that?
Take PA as an example, in just the last 10 years it’s gotten more urban, less white, and trended older. Those are all major demographic changes:

http://paoutdoorrecplan.com/cs/groups/comm/documents/document/dcnr_20028733.pdf

Tlaloc on May 6, 2015 at 11:52 PM

And the squishy push for jeb bush begins at HA. Not only will bush not win Florida (he is not beloved here) but the country does not want him or hillary. But if that’s the race then the idiots will vote for the first female president. It will be a massive percentage landslide with possibly a record low turnout. hillary could sweep the electoral college.

peacenprosperity on May 6, 2015 at 11:22 PM

Exactly. This is it exactly. Jeb Bush is the only Republican who can lose to Hillary. Period.

With the scenario above, Walker/Rubio looks like our best bet. Walker has to be on the top of the ticket, though.

Theophile on May 6, 2015 at 11:56 PM

Jeb Bush is the only Republican who can lose to Hillary. Period.

With the scenario above, Walker/Rubio looks like our best bet. Walker has to be on the top of the ticket, though.

Theophile on May 6, 2015 at 11:56 PM

If Jeb is the only one who can lose then logically isn’t anyone but Jeb your best option? If every other candidate wins how can Wlaker/Rubio be “better?”

Tlaloc on May 7, 2015 at 12:03 AM

The only reason it worked for Obama to go after traditionally red states is because they weren’t red states anymore. Demographics had pushed them to be purple. The GOP can’t do that because they don’t have that advantage.

Tlaloc on May 6, 2015 at 11:16 PM

Yes. Funny, because all of those “purple” voters were being called right-wing crazies by your lot back when they turned out for GWB in 2004. If the red states of 2004 were purple, then so are the blue states of 2012. To ignore the changing realities of the electoral map is to ignore history – history that show supposedly “static” maps far larger than Bush’s or Obama’s being destroyed and rebuilt to look extremely different. That said, if you’re so busy fighting the last war looking at what you believe are certainties in the 2012 map in planning for 2016 that’s okay by me. Just don’t feel too bad when the Midwest falls one by one to the GOP because Team Hillary figured those were all safe and she didn’t need to put too much of Putin’s her money in play out there.

Everybody on both sides would do well to be aware of the dynamics at play. As Brandon Finnigan (ConArtCritic) always says: tell me how you plan to win Pennsylvania. When you limit yourself, that only gives free rein to the other side. Try to squeeze your way to 270 and you’ll always get clobbered by the guy aiming for 538 – looking at people and their problems in a weak economy rather than various mathematical combinations of electoral votes. You want to believe that it’s all about demographics then hammer identity politics until you realize that you’ve lost everybody who is not of your chosen identity and/or has too many immediate private/pocketbook/security concerns to waste time playing social justice games. Again, if your side wants to ignore it though and assume models are always static and only ever shift in your favor, that’s okay. Keep at it. Tell me more about how Texas will go blue.

Gingotts on May 7, 2015 at 12:23 AM

I think republicans best chance is Jeb/Walker. (FD: I’m a liberal)

The other candidates – huck, carson, cruz, etc.

They’re super fun in a primary campaign, but lets be real. They don’t have a chance in hell of winning a general election. Their positions on social issues are much too radical to ever have a realistic shot. I mean shit, Cruz thinks the feds are about to invade texas. That’s not a mainstream america politician right there. Don’t confuse getting elected in deep red texas with getting elected in america, it’s not the same thing.

So you’re left with Jeb, the only mainstream candidate I can see, and Walker, a non-stupid VP candidate that is just radical enough for the base to come out and vote.

Knowing republicans, they’ll talk up cruz, because he’s the one they want, and they’ll go into the booth.. and vote jeb, because deep down, they know what they want and what america wants are two different things. And they’ll sacrifice what they really want to regain control at some level.

But none of this is going to matter. Hillary will win. This is the easiest election to call ever. You could have called this election and been fairly accurate 5-6 years ago.

triple on May 7, 2015 at 1:36 AM

All I have to say is I’m SO sorry Michigan is full of dumbasses that make it a blue state, and if dems win 2016, good luck finding a job anywhere. Things are going to crash like you’ve never seen in your life, 2008 will look like a birthday party in comparison.

But on the lighter side, not long after a dem win the civil war will start, and not too terribly long after that we wont have liberals or progressives around to beat up anymore. They’ll be a cloud of carbon encircling the planet till the oceans eat them.

Andy__B on May 7, 2015 at 2:20 AM

Their positions on social issues are much too radical to ever have a realistic shot. I mean shit, Cruz thinks the feds are about to invade texas.

triple on May 7, 2015 at 1:36 AM

The phrase “Turn Texas blue” doesn’t ring a bell eh?

Andy__B on May 7, 2015 at 2:22 AM

It’s not that bad. The Republican candidate won’t be someone committed to halt mass immigration. So whatever happens would have happened anyway, when the imported brown masses outvote the 90% white Republican base.

David Blue on May 7, 2015 at 4:45 AM

If Jeb is the only one who can lose then logically isn’t anyone but Jeb your best option? If every other candidate wins how can Wlaker/Rubio be “better?”

Tlaloc on May 7, 2015 at 12:03 AM

That is an absolutely valid question, especially given my phrasing.

Whilst only Jeb can lose to Hillary, there is no guarantee that Hillary will be the nominee. While it is 98% a sure thing, she could lose again to another semi-unknown like Obama, she could be forced to withdraw due to scandal or, Heaven forbid, she could die before the convention/election. Given that, I want to maximize the numbers and hedge my bets against whatever scenario is thrown our way. Thus, the logical ticket of Walker/Rubio with Walker on top. :) :) :)

Theophile on May 7, 2015 at 5:06 AM

I think republicans best chance is Jeb/Walker. (FD: I’m a liberal)

The other candidates – huck, carson, cruz, etc.

They’re super fun in a primary campaign, but lets be real. They don’t have a chance in hell of winning a general election. Their positions on social issues are much too radical to ever have a realistic shot. I mean shit, Cruz thinks the feds are about to invade texas. That’s not a mainstream america politician right there. Don’t confuse getting elected in deep red texas with getting elected in america, it’s not the same thing.

So you’re left with Jeb, the only mainstream candidate I can see, and Walker, a non-stupid VP candidate that is just radical enough for the base to come out and vote.

Knowing republicans, they’ll talk up cruz, because he’s the one they want, and they’ll go into the booth.. and vote jeb, because deep down, they know what they want and what america wants are two different things. And they’ll sacrifice what they really want to regain control at some level.

But none of this is going to matter. Hillary will win. This is the easiest election to call ever. You could have called this election and been fairly accurate 5-6 years ago.

triple on May 7, 2015 at 1:36 AM

The same way that Hillary won in 2008? That election was called for her a year in advance as well. :)

Only Jeb can lose to Hillary and that is why you are pushing for him here. Democrats always want The Republicans to nominate the Democrat Lite and the system is rigged so that they do exactly that most of the time.

No more Democrat Lites.

No more Bushes.

No more Clintons.

Period.

Theophile on May 7, 2015 at 5:09 AM

The key problem remains Republican unwillingness to examine its 2012 policy platform as a key reason for losing. I.e., the widespread perception that the party only cares about the ultra rich and private corporations.

The ONLY significant candidate who could make a substantial claim for favoring different policies, is Ohio Gov. John Kasich. The rest of the field is merely proposing to sell the same old wine in new bottles in a vain attempt to persuade moderates and ethnic minorities.

mlindroo on May 7, 2015 at 5:46 AM

Ah the old Romney lost because conservatives stayed home chestnut. Like a broken record playing the same snippet of a song over and over. A couple of points on that (which will be stated for the hundredth time), if conservatives weren’t motivated enough to get off their asses and vote against the most left-wing President in our history, then I don’t know what the hell would motivate them. A reanimated Reagan running against a reanimated Teddy Kennedy?

You guys realize that this is a conceit, a little self-massage, right? If you convince yourselves that there are millions of conservatives out there just waiting to pull the lever for a Ted Cruz, then the country isn’t lost, it can still be saved. But the country, or at the very least the Presidency, is lost. One last cold-water bucket on this inferno of bullsht, the vast majority of conservatives are white, I don’t know anyone who argues that the millions of conservatives sitting on their hands in 2012 were all minorities. And Romney won a greater share of the white vote than Reagan. If Reagan had been able to match Romney’s percentages among whites, he would have put an even worse beating on Mondale. Give it up guys, Romney lost because every four years a sea of ignoramuses flood the polls. And there’s nothing we can do about that.

Lamont Cranston on May 7, 2015 at 5:56 AM

I’m almost certain one of those states is going to flip next election. After eight years of Obama, and the possibility of Hillary or some relative unknown, I don’t see all those states going D next time. the problem is Republicans get hammered in the media for being the bad guy and then we pick the seemingly nicest bad guy to represent us. The next time someone says Republicans represent the party of the rich, remind them that most of the tivhest districts and richest counties in the country consistently vote Democrat.

jas88 on May 7, 2015 at 6:25 AM

Stoic Patriot on May 6, 2015 at 8:17 PM

Since math is hard…

George W. Bush, 2004: 62,040,610 votes
Mitt Romney, 2012: 60,933,500 votes

And keep in mind, the population has continued to expand since 2004. Even if you want to do demographic analysis, while the white vote has declined as a percentage of the vote, the overall pool has nonetheless expanded.

However, is there any evidence there are more WHITE CONSERVATIVE VOTERS now than in 2004? I very much doubt it. Obama fared well among white 18-29 year olds whereas Romney overwhelmingly won the 65+ segment.

BTW, Bush’s stronger performance is almost entirely attributable to winning 40%+ of the Hispanic vote plus a record share of Blacks. Since the minority population keeps growing, the 2016 nominee will have to perform even better among minorities than Bush did.

mlindroo on May 7, 2015 at 6:51 AM

As I said, easy victory for Romney.

Pincher Martin on May 6, 2015 at 9:11 PM

However, the composition of the non-Hispanic white vote has changed greatly as well. E.g. please look up the number of married whites or frequent churchgoers in the early 1980s vs. now. In relative terms, the white working class has shrunk dramatically.

The GOP’s key problem is some parts of the non-Hispanic white electorate are among the Democrats’ most loyal supporters, e.g. unmarried women, sexual minorities and the secular.

BTW, if an “easy victory” requires that you equal Reagan’s performance in 1984, then I would say you have a significant problem…

mlindroo on May 7, 2015 at 7:11 AM

The white vote made up 86% of the total electorate in 1984, but only 72% of the electorate in 2012. I remember reading an analysis (I think by Sean Trende, but I may be mistaken) that discussed the statistical difference as a result of the drop in the white vote as a share of the electorate.

Revenant on May 6, 2015 at 9:00 PM

Trende’s conclusion was the drop could be attributed to downscale secular white working class voters from northern states not voting. Quite a few of the voted for Barry in 2008 but they liked neither option in 2012.

My impression is this particular segment has not been a reliable part of the GOP coalition since 1988.

mlindroo on May 7, 2015 at 8:01 AM

Depressing reminder: The 2016 election will be decided by seven states — and Florida is an absolute must-win

This is the most common lie that’s ever uttered. It’s not decided by seven states. It’s decided by all 50 states. The fact that most states do not change their voting behavior does not mean that their electoral votes no longer count.

An obvious lesson from that: The GOP’s almost certainly going to need a candidate from Florida on the ticket next year to maximize its chances of winning the state. Nominating Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio would achieve that.

Errrr… wasn’t nominating Paul Ryan supposed to guarantee Wisconsin? Wasn’t nominating Al Gore supposed to guarantee Tennessee, and given his connection to Clinton, give him Arkansas? Shouldn’t Romney have gotten Massachusetts and Michigan by that logic of home states? Tell me how all of those worked out.

Your map of electoral competitiveness is rational. Your analysis of what to do after that point is not.

Stoic Patriot on May 6, 2015 at 8:09 PM

I pretty much agree with this analysis. Allahpundit’s piece is interesting at this time, but things end up happening that change the landscape. I’m not going to give any “pie in the sky” predictions about which states the Republicans are going to “steal” to win the White House as they are devoid of reality, and just what people WANT to happen. I always remember how many on this website had McCain “stealing” California on Election Day. No reason really…they just wanted him to win.

asc85 on May 7, 2015 at 8:40 AM

I remember a liberal historian reflecting on how hard it was for Democrats to win in the late 1980s in my college course on the Presidency saying things like “How do you expect a Democrat to get elected in Montana?” So this is nothing new for either party…or is it?

See-saw before:

Republicans after Watergate were decimated just a few years before Nixon had one of the greatest electoral victories over McGovern

Obama after the 2008 Financial Collapse and tiring of Iraqi and Afghan wars was followed by 2 out-year election decimations – Maryland has a Republican governor

Reagan in 1984 making liberal an almost derogatory term winning 49 states

BUT…the big question is will Hispanics only vote Democrat or will they gradually vote for both parties like Italian-Americans did after a generation or two? If California is the future then uh oh! Or maybe not, if the approach truly sucks like we think it does, some portion of the population might see leftism doesn’t work and want more freedom and opportunity.

timoric on May 7, 2015 at 8:50 AM

We need to quit conceding the big states, you big dummies (talking to the GOP here.).

We need a bit more churchill .fight on the beaches/never surrender. mentality than this effete surrender monkey attitude brought by Priebus/Romney/McCain/Boehner/McConnell. Appeal to the Black vote and Latino vote and their common principles. Push back against the propaganda against us. Start making inroads and arguing for the future.

Chubbs65 on May 7, 2015 at 9:40 AM

If this was true, than why not just have a Florida election? Why go to all the bother of the other states…

Because, seldom are these analysis correct…one will be, because there will be so many, that one will be right, just by the mathematical odds.

Which one will be right? We will know the day after the election, because they will parade that around for the next 4 years.

right2bright on May 7, 2015 at 9:44 AM

Why would you say that?
Take PA as an example, in just the last 10 years it’s gotten more urban, less white, and trended older. Those are all major demographic changes:

http://paoutdoorrecplan.com/cs/groups/comm/documents/document/dcnr_20028733.pdf

Tlaloc on May 6, 2015 at 11:52 PM

The change has been marginal compared to other states in the country and not all the trends you mention hurt the GOP. Older people, for example, don’t shy away from voting for the GOP.

As for race and ethnicity, the percentage of non-white, non-black voters (Hispanic, Asian, Other) in PA is just 8 percent. That doesn’t explain the state’s consistent blueness over the last six presidential elections. That’s very little change.

The state electorate in Nevada, for example, became more Hispanic in just the eight years from 2004 to 2012 (10 percent to 19 percent) than Pennsylvania is non-white, non-black today.

The biggest problem in PA for Republicans in 2012 is that 42 percent of white voters still voted for Obama. That’s the real problem.

Pincher Martin on May 7, 2015 at 11:00 AM

People mention that Walker’s lack of a paper from a college is a liability. To me, that’s really an ASSET! Look at the mess we’re in today and realize that for at least the past 23 years, we’ve been ruled by IVY LEAGUERS!!!! (I say this as a Cornell grad myself, so I’m pretty unbiased on this one) Heck, I’d take a high school dropout over some of the college educated “leaders” we’ve been cursed with!

sjoseph371 on May 7, 2015 at 11:06 AM

The change has been marginal compared to other states in the country and not all the trends you mention hurt the GOP. Older people, for example, don’t shy away from voting for the GOP.

Pincher Martin on May 7, 2015 at 11:00 AM

If you check Dave Leip’s US election atlas, you will notice that the big change in Pennsylvania is the GOP no longer is competitive in the Philadelphia area. Recent gains in blue-collar Pittsburgh cannot quite compensate for that.

2012:
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2012&fips=42&f=1&off=0&elect=0

1988:
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1988&fips=42&f=1&off=0&elect=0

mlindroo on May 7, 2015 at 11:12 AM

However, the composition of the non-Hispanic white vote has changed greatly as well. E.g. please look up the number of married whites or frequent churchgoers in the early 1980s vs. now. In relative terms, the white working class has shrunk dramatically.

mlindroo on May 7, 2015 at 7:11 AM

That’s partially true, but those results are confounded by race. Half of unmarried women in the U.S. are black or Hispanic.

The GOP doesn’t have a gender gap with white women. Bush won them; McCain won them, and Romney increased his share among them.

Do unmarried white women prevent the GOP from increasing its gains in that demographic? Maybe, but I’d like to see some hard data on that.

Pincher Martin on May 7, 2015 at 11:12 AM

did they not tell Ronald R the SAME thing TWICE?!?!?

gwhh on May 7, 2015 at 11:13 AM

OT or not, the mooch has issues

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2015 at 12:05 PM

Doesn’t matter…our federal republic is essentially done and gone.

Ricard on May 7, 2015 at 12:13 PM

Nice map. What you are really looking at is the near future borders of two separate nations. The coasties will be East Libland and West Libland, ya know like East and West Pakistan before the Bangladeshies got their own. While the vast remainder of the nation will be the part still free. Cool huh? In a few decades let’s compare notes and see who comes out on top.
I’m thinking the coasties are in real trouble if left to their own devices. How are you going to put it to the “man” and all those evil Christians when they are no longer your countrymen.

phadras on May 7, 2015 at 12:21 PM

Iowa’s now a blue state in presidential elections thanks to all the section 8’s moving here.

I think legalization puts Colorado in play, as long as the GOP nominee doesn’t make wave about it the pot smokers will stay home.

agmartin on May 7, 2015 at 12:27 PM

Last election the GOP observers in Philadelphia were removed due to a last minute court challenge. Next time some republican should sue to have the observers removed early so the process is complete before election day.

agmartin on May 7, 2015 at 12:35 PM

There hasn’t been a lot of demographic change in those states since then (outside of Illinois, perhaps),

Pincher Martin on May 6, 2015 at 11:41 PM

Where have all those illegals been shipped to?
Election integrity is going to be HUGE in 2016.

Dexter_Alarius on May 7, 2015 at 12:42 PM

Nominate an AMERICA LOVER, not a class divider.

Someone that appeals to the greater sense of America and a robust growing powerful and just AMERICA.

Like Reagan in 1980.

Any chance we could get some DNA from that crypt on the side of the hill in Simi Valley? Maybe from his boots?

IF, IF, IF we could just get the gop nominee to NOT FOLD IN THE DEBATES we would have a more Conservative President. Look how McCain and Romney both had leads over Obama and then through the elections in the debates. We could have been spared this whole last 6 1/2 years.

PappyD61 on May 7, 2015 at 1:08 PM

The United States is on it’s knees as it is. We lose this one to Clinton and the country has pretty much had it.

V7_Sport on May 6, 2015 at 11:18 PM

Given that you guys say this before every election can we just take it for granted? It just gets so damn tedious to see you repeat this mantra all zombie like every 4 years…

Tlaloc on May 6, 2015 at 11:21 PM

Do you think a POS like you will fit in when the country goes full on Baltimore? I’m pretty sure an infantilized bigmouth b!tch like you will be begging to be rescued from the consequences of your own stupidity.

V7_Sport on May 7, 2015 at 1:21 PM

Pincher Martin on May 7, 2015 at 11:12 AM

That’s partially true, but those results are confounded by race. Half of unmarried women in the U.S. are black or Hispanic.

The GOP doesn’t have a gender gap with white women. Bush won them; McCain won them, and Romney increased his share among them.

True, as far as it goes … but the changing white electorate still seems to hurt the Republican party. Romney overwhelmingly won white married women (62% vs. 37%) and white women overall (56% vs. 42%) while Obama won white unmarried women 52% vs. 46%. Overall, 70% of white voters were married in 1984 vs. 65% in 2012.

The more drastic decline among married white men probably matters more, though. Married, religious, working class white men remain staunch Republicans but they make up a smaller part of the non-Hispanic white electorate than in 1984.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/09/republicans-cant-win-with-white-voters-alone/279436/

mlindroo on May 7, 2015 at 1:26 PM

No way the GOP pulls VA. Hopelessly lost. Not even a purple state anymore.

I’m inclined to say the same about Iowa.

SAMinVA on May 7, 2015 at 2:00 PM

What’s depressing about this particular election?
It’ll be liberal vs. liberal, so what’s the difference?
We’ve been “hopelessly lost” for a very long time.

Just recall that photo of Boehner, McConnell & Obama, thick as thieves, as they sell-out America yet once again with the TPP trade deal.
Forgot it? Here it is:

http://economyincrisis.org/content/boehner-mcconnell-and-president-obama-are-servants-to-the-plutocrats

Belle on May 7, 2015 at 2:39 PM

P.S. On my computer, the above link is in red?!, or am I just seeing it?

Belle on May 7, 2015 at 2:40 PM

Kasich/Rubio or Bush/Kasich cover Florida and Ohio which are both essentiald lose either and you are beaten for all intents and purposes. Wisconsin is marginally winnable but not essential. Voting for Walker is an assumption that he has national appeal that brings in Florida and Ohio on its own since he could appeal to Florida with Rubio or Bush as VP or to Ohio with Kasich but not both. I hope he does become that popular across the nation but I doubt it.

KW64 on May 7, 2015 at 2:44 PM

The premise here is entirely flawed. Yeah, if you assume that Jeb Bush is the nominee, then this is probably what the map looks like. But if Rand Paul is the nominee, you can expect something more like this:

http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bLfh

TBSchemer on May 7, 2015 at 2:52 PM

From my post last month.

I fear we may be permanently losing Florida in the electoral college.

I’ve done a little research and think I’ve found a way to close the gap if that’s the case.

There are four states that have solid Republican majorities in their congressional districts but keep going Democrat in Presidential elections due to urban turnout.

OH, MI, WI, FL.

Each of the states have solid Republican State control: Assembly, Senate, Governorship.

If each of these states were to vote to change how electoral votes are awarded based on Congressional districts, I calculate Republicans would pick up 50 electoral votes without having to win one additional state.

Starting with the 2012 electoral vote total of 206 plus the 50, puts you at 256, just 14 shy of 270.

That leaves the potential swings states of CO-9, NM-5, VA-13, IA-6, PA-20 to pick up those 14 additional votes.

Again, this only assumes that FL is permanently lost.

If you think you can take FL, the picture gets better.
2012 Base………- 206
Florida…………- 29
WI,OH,MI allocated.- 32
———————–
……….Total…- 267

Now you only need three additional electoral votes. Not too shabby.

WisRich on April 23, 2015 at 3:54 PM

The Republicans have to leverage the advantages they have in State houses.

WisRich on May 7, 2015 at 3:04 PM

Emotion can be unforgiving, and when you try and break up families that have been living here, and contributing to the economy for years chances are they will never vote for your party, and neither will their children…

publius75 on May 6, 2015 at 9:40 PM

I’m with you on this publius74. I don’t want to break up families either. I want to reunite them in their country of citizenship. You know, like Mexico does when they find a citizen of another country living in Mexico for two days or two decades, they send them home.

Alabama Infidel on May 7, 2015 at 3:26 PM

Lamont Cranston on May 7, 2015 at 5:56 AM

Romney lost because nobody liked him like they don’t like any ESTABLISHMENT RINO.

2012 Exit Poll
http://www.usatoday.com/interactives/news/politics/how-the-race-was-won/

Most Important Candidate Quality – Cares About People Like Me
0bama 81.2
Romney 17.6

I live in Florida. Both corrupt “Bought and Paid For” Screwbio nor the Dauphin Jeb care about me.

I’m not voting for either of these cretins.

Run a small government conservative or lose.

Deal with it.

Jayrae on May 7, 2015 at 3:59 PM

Hillary doesn’t have to come out of her bunker to visibly run for POTUS.

Just show up on the ballot.

The DNC will GOTV in OH and FL.

Game over.

Gotta love those poll results blogs between now and then, though.

As if they mean something. (Other than fulfilling blog quota’s.)

Carnac on May 7, 2015 at 4:16 PM

Here in Colorado, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio may have better chance to win than other Republican candidates. CO is a state that overall favors lower taxes but also less religious.

Colorado is a swing state that is trending blue in recent years. There are still slightly more registered Republicans than registered Democrats. However, there are many people moving in, so it is questionable whether this slight advantage could remain for much longer.

Democrats used to have a much stronger ground game, although Republicans are starting to catch up. However, Colorado passed some very liberal voting laws, which allow both mail-in ballot and same day registration, when Democrats control both state houses a few years ago.

So, yeah, Colorado is a typical swing state. Hey, conservatives, please consider moving to Colorado, and we need your help to win in 2016. :-)

sohumm on May 7, 2015 at 4:34 PM

Do you think a POS like you will fit in when the country goes full on Baltimore? I’m pretty sure an infantilized bigmouth b!tch like you will be begging to be rescued from the consequences of your own stupidity.

V7_Sport on May 7, 2015 at 1:21 PM

Huh, you mad, bro.

Notice the lack of question mark.

Tlaloc on May 7, 2015 at 5:19 PM

..jeeeee-zus Key-rist! Hanging out here is like partying with that Eeyore Major League II fan played by Randy Quaid.

On the other hand, if Rancid Peeenis and the old guard are running the show, then please pass the cup of hemlock and loaded .45 over, will you?

The War Planner on May 7, 2015 at 5:20 PM

The Republicans have to leverage the advantages they have in State houses.

WisRich on May 7, 2015 at 3:04 PM

It’s sort of neat how you call for rampant cheating with no hint of shame (yes, trying to use GOP domination of statehouses to change blue states, but not red states, to proportional allotment of EVs is explicitly cheating the system).

Usually you guys at least pretend to have some regard for democracy.

Tlaloc on May 7, 2015 at 5:24 PM

Usually you guys at least pretend to have some regard for democracy.

Tlaloc on May 7, 2015 at 5:24 PM

I’m just playing by the rules you Lib’s establish. If a National vote is fair game, why not this?

WisRich on May 7, 2015 at 5:29 PM

Tlaloc on May 7, 2015 at 5:24 PM

And exactly how would this be cheating? Two states already do it?

Complaining about cheating when Hillary Clinton is going to be Dem nominee is pretty rich.

WisRich on May 7, 2015 at 5:35 PM

True, as far as it goes … but the changing white electorate still seems to hurt the Republican party. Romney overwhelmingly won white married women (62% vs. 37%) and white women overall (56% vs. 42%) while Obama won white unmarried women 52% vs. 46%. Overall, 70% of white voters were married in 1984 vs. 65% in 2012.

That’s not a huge decline, though. Republicans are still more competitive among unmarried white women than they are among any major ethnic group.

And that’s the rub. Compare the decrease in the number of white married couples with the increase the number of non-white voters since 1984, and there is no comparison. White voters were 86 percent of the electorate in 1984 and they were 72 percent in 2012. So the increase in minority voters, who are more likely to vote Democrat, is about three times as fast over those twenty-eight years as the decrease in unmarried white voters, who are still more likely to cast their ballots for the GOP than are minority voters.

I agree neither trend is favorable for the GOP, but the change in ethnic composition is far more problematic. It’s faster, and those voters are more solidly Democratic.

So the Rust Belt strategy is still sound. To the degree that Republicans have a serious chance at all to turn around the electoral map, they need to appeal more broadly to whites, whose parents and grandparents at least showed some inclination in the past of voting for Republicans.

Pincher Martin on May 7, 2015 at 6:09 PM

You guys realize that this is a conceit, a little self-massage, right? If you convince yourselves that there are millions of conservatives out there just waiting to pull the lever for a Ted Cruz, then the country isn’t lost, it can still be saved. But the country, or at the very least the Presidency, is lost. One last cold-water bucket on this inferno of bullsht, the vast majority of conservatives are white, I don’t know anyone who argues that the millions of conservatives sitting on their hands in 2012 were all minorities. And Romney won a greater share of the white vote than Reagan. If Reagan had been able to match Romney’s percentages among whites, he would have put an even worse beating on Mondale. Give it up guys, Romney lost because every four years a sea of ignoramuses flood the polls. And there’s nothing we can do about that.

Lamont Cranston on May 7, 2015 at 5:56 AM

Translation. If it ain’t White it ain’t right!

Go ‘Merica!

Politricks on May 7, 2015 at 7:07 PM

Huh, you mad, bro.

Notice the lack of question mark.

Tlaloc on May 7, 2015 at 5:19 PM

Lame, you aren’t even a good troll.
I’m not your “bro”, I realize that you have no idea who your father is but I’m all set with who my brothers are and you aren’t one of them.
Yes, “mad” as in angry that he have become so decadent as a society that people like you can not only stay in a state of arrested adolescence all the way to your state run assisted living center but that you also inflict yourselves on the rest of us. It makes me “mad” that a confederacy of crybabies, idiots, grievance mongers and parasites are dragging this country down into the dirt. But you know that, that’s why you are here, and that you don’t have anything else to do with your time but cheer on the destruction with those who are agonizing over it makes you even more pathetic.

V7_Sport on May 7, 2015 at 8:25 PM

We may well be at the point that we’ve lost the country due to massive non-white immigration. You race-blind conservatives were fooled for too long by Colin Powell and Marco Rubio into thinking that anyone could vote for conservatism and small government. Well guess what? Most people on the planet are not interested in self reliance or liberty. They’d rather take Whitey’s stuff. And now there are more of them than you.

Don’t way you weren’t warned.

Thresher on May 7, 2015 at 11:11 PM

So the Rust Belt strategy is still sound. To the degree that Republicans have a serious chance at all to turn around the electoral map, they need to appeal more broadly to whites, whose parents and grandparents at least showed some inclination in the past of voting for Republicans.

Pincher Martin on May 7, 2015 at 6:09 PM

OK, I do not really disagree with any of the points that you made in your previous post.

The practical problem with that strategy, though, is virtually all GOP candidates favor economic policies which most downscale/working class voters (regardless of ethnicity!) do not trust. John Kasich is really the only current Governor who has a proven track record successfully wooing a vast majority of Rust Belt swing voters. I suspect Kasich could be very competitive in PA, IA, MN, MI, WI. But e.g. Scott Walker has basically relied on a narrow us-vs-them “rally the conservative base” strategy which simply does not work in national presidential elections anymore.

The bipartisan conventional wisdom after 2012 was no Republican candidate would ever try to rely exclusively on non-Hispanic whites the way Romney/Ryan. It seems Walker never got the message.

mlindroo on May 8, 2015 at 4:46 AM

“Russia will spread her errors…” The Blessed Virgin Mary, Fatima, 1917.

Leftism is a cancer and the US has passed terminal stage. I feel sure the last chance to save ourselves was 2012, but when Abortionist in Chief was innaugerated for the second time within days of the 40th anniversary of the evil Roe V Wade decision…well…Romans 1.

The Blessed Mother said some other things too. As did Our Lord. Are you paying attention? It’s easy, what with Drudge listing the signs for us every day.

Wars…check
Rumors of wars…check
pestilence…check
earthquakes in divers places…check
persecution…check

Wake up.

pannw on May 8, 2015 at 10:43 AM

Candidate Also Gore, “All I need is 13 states”
Hillary will win But Scandle will take her out
I’m more interested in who she picks as her VP that scares me
if its Julian Castro then the Cartels and Mexican mafia become the biggest crime organization in the US controlled by the government with a newly minted army ready to take orders out of fear.

IXXINY on May 8, 2015 at 11:18 AM

There are so many RED states that are permanently lost to the Democrats, ever since the Bush Family took over the Republican Party.

NO MORE BUSHES!!!

sohumm on May 8, 2015 at 5:56 PM

Good analysis. Until people in Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida wake up and change their ideologies the dems will win the presidency by default. Republicans should be able to control the house and sometimes the senate for most of the time by winning midterms.

Dollayo on May 9, 2015 at 5:58 AM

We could use about 100-200K GOP voters to move from blue states where their vote does not count to the battleground states. Don’t think that isn’t what democrat voter registration is about…they scrounge for voters. We need 40K GOP voters to head for New Hampshire. 125K GOP voters to leave their unhappy blue state and take up residence in Virginia, and the same in Ohio, and Colorado…you CA unhappy 4 million voters…do you hear? Your vote does not count in Cali.

Fleuries on May 9, 2015 at 7:58 PM

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.

Rea1ityCheck on May 10, 2015 at 9:47 PM