2016 Presidential Battleground States?

[onejayhawk]

2012 was not a close election, but it was a lot closer than the electoral vote indicates. Of the 126 vote margin, 58 attribute to Florida, which was extremely close, less then 1%. This was very much a ground war election. Barack Obama swept the close races, except for North Carolina. Much of the credit needs to go to historic GotV numbers, which may have swung three populous states.

These states were under 6%
* Iowa
* New Hampshire
* Colorado
* Pennsylvania (tipping point state)
* Virginia
* Ohio
* Florida
* North Carolina

http://www.democratichub.com/election/8.aspx?elr=m&cand=barack+obama&s=a

As with 2000 and 2004, Florida and Ohio are very close. Virginia only slightly less close. A Republican needs two of three, but that is very doable. Pennsylvania (or Colorado) is the tipping state, but only by 2 EV. New Hampshire's four votes is enough. Other potential flip states are Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa.

Going the other direction, North Carolina is the only close state that the Democrats can target. Wisconsin and Minnesota are closer than Georgia, the next closest red state.

www.270towin.com lets you start with the NBC battleground states as toss ups. The initial position is 232 blue - 164 red. Florida is almost required for the Republicans to win, again. Moving it 1%, easily within the scope of GotV, in 2012 changes the EV margin from 126 to 68.

J

[Pogues]

www.270towin.com lets you start with the NBC battleground states as toss ups. The initial position is 232 blue - 164 red. Florida is almost required for the Republicans to win, again. Moving it 1%, easily within the scope of GotV, in 2012 changes the EV margin from 126 to 68.

J

That would make a Republican push for nomination of Jeb Bush a possibility. He could secure Florida for the Republicans making election a bit easier.

[Erik]

That would make a Republican push for nomination of Jeb Bush a possibility. He could secure Florida for the Republicans making election a bit easier.

Marco Rubio is running too.

[revo]

That would make a Republican push for nomination of Jeb Bush a possibility. He could secure Florida for the Republicans making election a bit easier.

What about Rubio?

[Pogues]

Marco Rubio is running too.

Good point, already forgot about him.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Shouldn't this thread be re-titled Pissing in the Wind?

[nots]

Can't see anyway Hillary doesn't win--the electoral college just lines up so well for a Democrat. Maybe Bush could swing Florida (probably not Rubio) but that's not enough.
Maybe Kasich could win Ohio, but that isn't enough either.
Pennsylvania is flat out fool's gold for the GOP. Always looks like it might be in play but always turns out to be not that close. Waste of time and resources chasing that dream.
I'd give the GOP nominee a 20% chance (maybe Kasich or Bush 25%). Attack ads aren't going to work on Hillary (what's left anyway). She'll spend almost no $ in the primaries while the GOP will be bloodying each other.

[Wonderboy]

Eighteen states and the D of C have gone Democratic in the last six consecutive elections. And that includes some spectacularly poor candidates like Gore and Kerry. Those 18 states total 242 electoral votes. All Hillary needs is 28 more.

By way of contrast, only thirteen (mostly) smaller states have gone Republican every election since 1992. They total 102 electoral votes. So they need to pick up 168, which is six times more than Hillary needs to win. Factor in that the GOP has lost the popular vote five out of the last six elections, and the demographics are moving steadily against them. Women will crawl through two miles of broken glass to vote for the first woman for President.

A good Republican candidate with wide-spread appeal could win over a poor Democratic nominee. But none of the GOP candidates outside of Jeb Bush have any appeal to moderates, and Hillary ain't Gore or Kerry.

Democratic fatigue may hold the total down to under 300 electoral votes. But short of some major scandal, I don't think this is going to even be that close.

[Judge Jude]

The logic is all plausible, but I also remember Karl Rove talking about his permanent Congressional R majority - and then the Ds took over at every level about 5 minutes later. and now there are more Rs in the House than in the past what, 100 years? plus they took back the Senate.

And I can't think of anyone who had Hillary losing a primary fight to Obama in 2008, and obviously there was no way GW Bush - who lost the popular vote in 2000 by millions and got into office via court controversy - would be re-elected in 2004. Sure things are having a tough time in DC the past 15 years....

[onejayhawk]

All of the comments about map advantage, aka the Blue Wall, are true. California, New York and Illinois total 104 EV. The Republicans have only Texas 38 out of the top 10 states. So the Republicans spread out of necessity.

That said, it is doable. Given Florida, and the NBC's starting point, you get 140 combinations that GOP wins or ties. The Democrats have 153 combinations.

http://www.270towin.com/presidential_map/combinations.php?party=Republican&num_rem=77&st_remain=OH,GA,NC,VA,AZ,WI,CO,IA,NV,NM,NH&me=&ne=

J

[nots]

Eighteen states and the D of C have gone Democratic in the last six consecutive elections. And that includes some spectacularly poor candidates like Gore and Kerry. Those 18 states total 242 electoral votes. All Hillary needs is 28 more.

By way of contrast, only thirteen (mostly) smaller states have gone Republican every election since 1992. They total 102 electoral votes. So they need to pick up 168, which is six times more than Hillary needs to win. Factor in that the GOP has lost the popular vote five out of the last six elections, and the demographics are moving steadily against them. Women will crawl through two miles of broken glass to vote for the first woman for President.

A good Republican candidate with wide-spread appeal could win over a poor Democratic nominee. But none of the GOP candidates outside of Jeb Bush have any appeal to moderates, and Hillary ain't Gore or Kerry.

Democratic fatigue may hold the total down to under 300 electoral votes. But short of some major scandal, I don't think this is going to even be that close.

I agree with just about everything here except the 'Hillary ain't no Kerry'. I think she isn't a good campaigner, or at least hasn't proven to be one so far. At best, she was uneven as a campaigner in 2008 blowing what should have been a win for her and at worst, she was a few tears short of a full meltdown in NH. Her interactions with the public yesterday feel forced and she struggled mightily to give a coherent answer to the 'what did you learn here today' question. Its also fair to remember its day 1 of an 18 month campaign so she'll have lots of opps to refine things.
None of the above changes the fact that she has a huge electoral advantage, but I think a more accurate statement would be the 'Hillary machine ain't the Kerry or Gore machine'. The more she sticks to the script, the better off she'll be.

[Erik]

The logic is all plausible, but I also remember Karl Rove talking about his permanent Congressional R majority - and then the Ds took over at every level about 5 minutes later. and now there are more Rs in the House than in the past what, 100 years? plus they took back the Senate.

Much lower turnout in non-presidential years can lead to wilder swings. People were mad at the R's in 2006, so the D's swept in. The R base was galvanized against Obamacare in 2010 while the D base was content and stayed home, and the R's took over the House.

But turnout in presidential years is much greater, so overall demographics play a much bigger role, and those favor the D's.

The main reason we don't have one-party government is that the D base and D-leaning independents tend to have low turnout in non-presidential years, and the same is not true for the Rs.

[onejayhawk]

I agree with just about everything here except the 'Hillary ain't no Kerry'. I think she isn't a good campaigner, or at least hasn't proven to be one so far. At best, she was uneven as a campaigner in 2008 blowing what should have been a win for her and at worst, she was a few tears short of a full meltdown in NH. Her interactions with the public yesterday feel forced and she struggled mightily to give a coherent answer to the 'what did you learn here today' question. Its also fair to remember its day 1 of an 18 month campaign so she'll have lots of opps to refine things.
None of the above changes the fact that she has a huge electoral advantage, but I think a more accurate statement would be the 'Hillary machine ain't the Kerry or Gore machine'. The more she sticks to the script, the better off she'll be.

That's an understatement.

She does not have a huge electoral advantage. She has a leg up.

Much lower turnout in non-presidential years can lead to wilder swings. People were mad at the R's in 2006, so the D's swept in. The R base was galvanized against Obamacare in 2010 while the D base was content and stayed home, and the R's took over the House.

But turnout in presidential years is much greater, so overall demographics play a much bigger role, and those favor the D's.

The main reason we don't have one-party government is that the D base and D-leaning independents tend to have low turnout in non-presidential years, and the same is not true for the Rs.

Do they? Evidence?

J

[GwynnInTheHall]

Do they? Evidence?

J

Even if he provided rock solid evidence and Jesus himself came down and notarized it, you'd still find a way to think otherwise.

It's really very simple, as long as the GOP forces it's candidates to support their ridiculous platform they will never win the White House. If the RNP allows them to stray from their ultra conservative planks, those candidates will lose support from their base and never win the white house.

Bottom line, unless they become progressives, diverse, committed to equality and demand the separation of church and state the GOP will never again have a sitting president.

Ever.

[onejayhawk]

Even if he provided rock solid evidence and Jesus himself came down and notarized it, you'd still find a way to think otherwise.

It's really very simple, as long as the GOP forces it's candidates to support their ridiculous platform they will never win the White House. If the RNP allows them to stray from their ultra conservative planks, those candidates will lose support from their base and never win the white house.

Bottom line, unless they become progressives, diverse, committed to equality and demand the separation of church and state the GOP will never again have a sitting president.

Ever.

A little light on the statistics there Doig.

Judge Jude already said it, but never say never in politics. A vast right wing conspiracy may beat Hillary.

J