Is this the absolute floor for both parties

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Nevada, New Mexico, and Minnesota are realistically in the dem floor column.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

This is Old School Rs map, he thinks Rs are fav to win in 2024. He thinks Baldwin and Casey are gonna cost D's the election

TX isn't a Tossup, Cruz or Crenshaw is going to be reelected to the seat but FL is with Rick Scott

[ProgressiveModerate]

Nevada, New Mexico, and Minnesota are realistically in the dem floor column.

I think they're probably favorites in all for now, but NV literally just voted 2% to the right of the nation; it's very easy to imagine Democrtas losing it. MN and NM seem like uphill climbs for Republicans and I would personally rate them at lean and likely D respectively for now, but it's definately possible they flip. I would say any state within 10% this cycle can't be completely written off in 2024.

[Malarkey Decider]

Nevada, New Mexico, and Minnesota are realistically in the dem floor column.

I think they're probably favorites in all for now, but NV literally just voted 2% to the right of the nation; it's very easy to imagine Democrtas losing it. MN and NM seem like uphill climbs for Republicans and I would personally rate them at lean and likely D respectively for now, but it's definately possible they flip. I would say any state within 10% this cycle can't be completely written off in 2024.

I agree, but NM was outside of 10%

[ProgressiveModerate]

Nevada, New Mexico, and Minnesota are realistically in the dem floor column.

I think they're probably favorites in all for now, but NV literally just voted 2% to the right of the nation; it's very easy to imagine Democrtas losing it. MN and NM seem like uphill climbs for Republicans and I would personally rate them at lean and likely D respectively for now, but it's definately possible they flip. I would say any state within 10% this cycle can't be completely written off in 2024.

I agree, but NM was outside of 10%

I tend to be a bit more generous with the potential range of outcomes in smaller states, specifically those that are quite narrow Demographically, since they tend to be a bit more volatile (Iowa in 2016 is a great example).

[DabbingSanta]

Nevada, New Mexico, and Minnesota are is realistically in the dem floor column.

Fixed it for you.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Nevada, New Mexico, and Minnesota are is realistically in the dem floor column.

Fixed it for you.

C'mon Minnesota, NM and NV is party of the floor MN hasn't voted R since 1972

TX isn't a Tossup FL is

[DabbingSanta]

Nevada, New Mexico, and Minnesota are is realistically in the dem floor column.

Fixed it for you.

C'mon Minnesota, NM and NV is party of the floor MN hasn't voted R since 1972

TX isn't a Tossup FL is

Minnesota nearly voted for Trump in 2016.
Nevada nearly voted for Trump in 2020.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

You guys are assuming that margin relative to the country matter. I'm more interested in absolute numbers, Dems got some 150,000, 136,000, and 170,000 votes in Minnesota in the last three elections, while Republicans have gotten in the 134,000 or so mark in all three. Even in the worse case scenario of 2016, Republicans didn't actually gain significant amounts of votes, Democratic voters just didn't turn out, but still won. This is a classic example of a state that 'trends' because the nation moves, but hasn't actually changed.

Also, remember that the nation isn't 50/50. If you believe that the GOP isn't capable of winning the popular vote in the short term, an R+1 state is out of reach of you believe in Cook style analysis.

EDIT: FWIW, I don't think PVI is useless, just that it's better for congressional elections and with the caveat that again, +0 is not a neutral environmemt

[pbrower2a]

The absolute floors at this point are :

for the Republican nominee, just about a Goldwater 1964-style loss. Republicans nominate a scary fanatic, and I don't want to explain the rest. I said enough.

for the Democrat, a Carter 1980-style loss due to the economy tanking (if you doubt that Trump wouldn't tank the economy as revenge for his loss, you underestimate how rotten a person he is...) with Biden unable to get the economy going back to normal in time. Figure that the Republicans insist upon economic recovery only on their terms, which is a reversion to economic norms of the 1920's.

What stops that? Senators Warnock (D-GA) and Ossoff (D-GA)

[DabbingSanta]

The absolute floors at this point are :

for the Republican nominee, just about a Goldwater 1964-style loss. Republicans nominate a scary fanatic, and I don't want to explain the rest. I said enough.

for the Democrat, a Carter 1980-style loss due to the economy tanking (if you doubt that Trump wouldn't tank the economy as revenge for his loss, you underestimate how rotten a person he is...) with Biden unable to get the economy going back to normal in time. Figure that the Republicans insist upon economic recovery only on their terms, which is a reversion to economic norms of the 1920's.

What stops that? Senators Warnock (D-GA) and Ossoff (D-GA)

Honestly, I don't think a 1964 or 1980 type scenario is even possible at this point with how polarized we are.  The U.S. nearly re-elected Trump and he was historically unpopular.  There will always be two sides and these days both sides get their information from totally different sources, that will paint two totally different pictures on what is going on.  Nobody is going to bother reading actual news when they can have their bias affirmed on The Young Turks or Breitbart.