Early 2016 Base Map

[ElectionsGuy]

Based off 2012 Elections Here's my map:  >70% = Safe  >50% = Strong/Likely   Toss-Up = Lean R/Lean D
This is NOT assuming any candidates or anything. Anything that leans is in toss-up mode for now.

[ElectionsGuy]

Barf, Waukeesha, why do you post those overly Republican-biased maps?

Mine is not partisan, it is completely based off a the trends of states and the 2012 election. It just seems partisan because we've had many more D victories so it seems ridiculous to put Michigan as a lean D instead of Strong D, etc. My map is assuming a tie in the popular vote.

[ElectionsGuy]

Barf, Waukeesha, why do you post those overly Republican-biased maps?

Mine is not partisan, it is completely based off a the trends of states and the 2012 election. It just seems partisan because we've had many more D victories so it seems ridiculous to put Michigan as a lean D instead of Strong D, etc. My map is assuming a tie in the popular vote.

Yes, Michigan as lean-D is reasonable, but you put it as a tossup!

Read My Message! I originally said that anything that leans is in Toss-Up mode for now, then I crossed that off and said Toss-Up = Lean D/Lean R.

[ElectionsGuy]

Yes, Michigan as lean-D is reasonable, but you put it as a tossup!

Read My Message! I originally said that anything that leans is in Toss-Up mode for now, then I crossed that off and said Toss-Up = Lean D/Lean R.

Well, thanks for the explanation. 

Your Welcome.

[ElectionsGuy]

Just for fun, I compiled all of these maps together and mentally estimated the averages of all the different base maps everyone made:

Looks about right, doesn't it?

While making it, when I saw people putting Maine District 2 as a solid Democratic seat, and at the same time putting Maine District 1 as a weaker Democratic seat, I swapped them, as District 2, is, incidentally, the more Republican one. I just assumed that the people who put District 1 as the more Republican one simply didn't know and didn't bother finding out.

I used a 50% to 90% scale for both sides of the spectrum, as I find the 30% pinks and light blues unaesthetic.

233 - Democrat
206 - Republican
99 - Tossup

Looks almost perfect!

[ElectionsGuy]

If New Hampshire and Iowa are tossups, wouldn't Wisconsin be as well?

Wisconsin is just slightly more democratic than those two. So it could be a toss-up but would probably be barely leaning.

[ElectionsGuy]

If New Hampshire and Iowa are tossups, wouldn't Wisconsin be as well?

Wisconsin is just slightly more democratic than those two. So it could be a toss-up but would probably be barely leaning.

Yep, It was on the threshold between Democratic leaning and toss-up.

The consensus is divided between whether it's short but sudden Republican trend will continue, or if it was just a fluke and and it will continue to be a weak Democratic state. I compromised and put it in as lean a Democratic category as I possibly could.

It also helps to differentiate it from the other toss-ups. Wisconsin is more Democratic than Iowa and New Hampshire, and certainly more so than, say, Ohio.

Nevada, Wisconsin, and North Carolina, the weakest non toss-up states on the map, could probably be considered "swing states" by some standards, but they all clearly lean a certain direction.

Yeah, I'll tell you that the 2008 Trend was a fluke for Obama, they clearly turned against him in 2012. I will be surprised if it jumps that far left again, but I think it'll continue a Weak D state for some time. White voters here (90% of voters) are very divided and swingish, meaning lots of independent voters who get easily convinced therefore contributing to Wisconsin's elasticity. That's how Walker and Johnson got elected. The future's too unpredictable however to predict future trends.

[ElectionsGuy]

Here are the political trends of states and their rankings based off of previous elections using comparing it to the rest of the country: I rank these using this system. By D/R+0-10%, I'm basically saying anything that is 0-10 points more liberal or conservative than the country fits into this category.

D/R+0-10% = >30% = Weak (Lean)                              
D/R+10-20% = >50% = Strong (Likely)                        
D/R+20% or more =>70% = Solid (Safe)

2012:

2008:

2004:

Note: I have no knowledge of Congressional District Data for 2004 or 2000.

2000:

With current trends evaluated, 2016?

[ElectionsGuy]

That's fine, but given the previous 3-4 maps you posted there, your final map represents wishful thinking about NH, CO, WI, IA, and PA - they're all clearly slightly lean D.

I was thinking that the republican trend with white voters might put those states in play, they're all just slightly tilted left of the nation by 1 or 2 points. Just like I thought the democratic trend with Hispanic voters would tip NM to likely D, in 2008 and 2012 it was at the edge of lean D.

Actually, I'll change WI back to lean D

[ElectionsGuy]

That's fine, but given the previous 3-4 maps you posted there, your final map represents wishful thinking about NH, CO, WI, IA, and PA - they're all clearly slightly lean D.

I was thinking that the republican trend with white voters might put those states in play, they're all just slightly tilted left of the nation by 1 or 2 points. Just like I thought the democratic trend with Hispanic voters would tip NM to likely D, in 2008 and 2012 it was at the edge of lean D.

I'm not sure there's such a clear long term trend with the whites, more just a marked difference between '08 and '12 based mostly on '08 being the abnormal outlier. 

2000: Bush 55%, Gore 42% (13% win) + Gore Win by 0.5% = R+13.5%
2004: Bush 58%, Kerry 41% (17% win) + Bush win by 2.4% = R+14.6%
2008: McCain 55%, Obama 43% (12% win) + Obama win by 7.2% = R+19.2%
2012: Romney 59%, Obama 39% (20% win) + Obama win by 3.9% = R+23.9%

Is this not clear enough?

[ElectionsGuy]

2000: Bush 55%, Gore 42% (13% win) + Gore Win by 0.5% = R+13.5%
2004: Bush 58%, Kerry 41% (17% win) + Bush win by 2.4% = R+14.6%
2008: McCain 55%, Obama 43% (12% win) + Obama win by 7.2% = R+19.2%
2012: Romney 59%, Obama 39% (20% win) + Obama win by 3.9% = R+23.9%

Is this not clear enough?

Obama's black.

Really? So you really think half the country is just racist? Its really unacceptable that you or many other liberal democrats can't accept the fact the racism is dying off. It's also too bad that they want (yes, that's right) racism in this country so they can keep blaming the GOP for racism. It's too bad you can't just accept the trend and make excuses to offset the reality.

I'm sorry if this was a strong reaction but these kind of excuses have got to stop.

[ElectionsGuy]

Obama's black.

Really? So you really think half the country is just racist? Its really unacceptable that you or many other liberal democrats can't accept the fact the racism is dying off. It's also too bad that they want (yes, that's right) racism in this country so they can keep blaming the GOP for racism. It's too bad you can't just accept the trend and make excuses to offset the reality.

I'm sorry if this was a strong reaction but these kind of excuses have got to stop.

But the racist who are dying off are also the Republicans who are dying off, WC.  They're your lifeblood.
[/quote]

The GOP isn't a racist party, it never was a racist party. The democratic party was a racist party pre-1960. No political parties are racist now and the only people who are racist are the old republicans who once were democrats (with some extremist rarer cases as well). Do you live in a world were nothing can improve for republicans and everything can improve for democrats? If so that is a very flawed and wishful way of thinking as I can almost guarantee you that the GOP will come back some time in the next decade, and it will come out of nowhere after the democrats thought they had it all. Just like democrat Bill Clinton came out of the blue and wiped H.W. Bush out in '92 after a long drought through the 70's and 80's. You can't simply think that republicans will just die off, if so we don't have a two-party system, and if we don't have a two-party system we don't have the United States of America.

[ElectionsGuy]

WC I never said the GOP wouldn't have some successes, I just said they're racist.

OK, but you did say that they are dying off which leads me to believe that you think they will keep doing worse. Anyway I see that you got basically nothing out of what I said, so I'm not even going to bother anymore, let's end this.

[ElectionsGuy]

lol Barfbag, this isn't the 90's anymore, Tennessee is solidly republican.

Also, if you have Georgia and Arizona as likely, you might as well have Indiana and Missouri as likely too. Maine should be filled in as likely D too. That is all.

[ElectionsGuy]

lol Barfbag, this isn't the 90's anymore, Tennessee is solidly republican.

Also, if you have Georgia and Arizona as likely, you might as well have Indiana and Missouri as likely too. Maine should be filled in as likely D too. That is all.

Obama won Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, and Maine by a larger margin than Romney won Missouri, Arizona, or Georgia. Also, he won Oregon and Maine by a larger margin than Romney won Indiana, South Carolina, or Mississippi. Finally, he won Maine by a larger margin than Romney won Alaska or Montana. Now, personally, I don't consider any of the states I just mentioned to be toss-ups, but you have to be consistent. You can't call Maine a toss-up but Georgia Safe R when Obama won Maine by 15.29% and Romney won Georgia by 7.82%.

I realize this, but we're doing this with all things being equal in the popular vote. Missouri, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, Mississippi, Alaska, and Montana are all more right wing than Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, and Maine in a tied election. We're not taking in Obama scores here, were taking in national trends and the score relative to the country as a whole therefore the ratings are not more favorable toward one party.

And that last comment there, I believe both Maine and Georgia should be likely D/R. That's what I said to barfbag.

[ElectionsGuy]

This is the permanent map I will have in my head until after the 2014 elections. I will make any changes necessary after then. Right now, when its really early, I will be relying on the "Safely Secure" Map for states that both candidates are almost guaranteed to win.

Here is my Safely Secure Map:

Republicans: 130
Democrats: 120

Note: Mississippi, while not overwhelmingly republican, is incedibly inelastic, so I call it Safe R for now.

Note: This is not taking any considerations for any candidates

And here is my Safely/Likely Secure Map:

Republicans: 191
Democrats: 185

Note: NE-2 is not lean republican. Many people don't realize that it got much more republican over redistricting, it used to be lean republican, it is now likely republican around the PVI of Georgia.

Note: Likely = >50%, Safely = >70%.

Likely R: Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, NE-2, South Carolina
Likely D: Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington

[ElectionsGuy]

This is the permanent map I will have in my head until after the 2014 elections. I will make any changes necessary after then. Right now, when its really early, I will be relying on the "Safely Secure" Map for states that both candidates are almost guaranteed to win.

Here is my Safely Secure Map:

Republicans: 130
Democrats: 120

Note: Mississippi, while not overwhelmingly republican, is incedibly inelastic, so I call it Safe R for now.

Note: This is not taking any considerations for any candidates

And here is my Likely Secure Map:

Republicans: 191
Democrats: 185

Note: NE-2 is not lean republican. Many people don't realize that it got much more republican over redistricting, it used to be lean republican, it is now likely republican around the PVI of Georgia.

Note: Likely = >50%, Safely = >70%.

Likely R: Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, NE-2, South Carolina
Likely D: Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington

Incredibly partisan. Obama did better in New Mexico and Michigan than Romney did in Arizona or Georgia. Stop trolling.

Once again, I will explain.

A lot of republican states happen to be much more secure than democratic states. Even with a fair glance, democrats have more electoral votes than republicans overall, this is because a lot of states lean their way, while most republican states are safe/likely and don't lean. So that's the reason why republicans have more Safe/Likely territory.

Another thing is that I am not taking in Obama scores, I'm taking in PVI and margin compared to national score. That way it is not biased. Sure, Obama did better in Michigan than Romney did in Georgia, but in a tied/close election, that won't be the case. You see, in a tied election Illinois would be just as partisan as Missouri would be, and Delaware would be just as partisan as Indiana.

Again, a lot of the competitive territory happens to be states that Obama won easily, but this is because he won the national election by 4 points. In a close election, some of these states that Obama won would be flipped or at least competitive. For example, Virginia, Ohio, and Florida would be flipped and states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, or Nevada would be very competitive.

Anything else wrong here that I didn't mention?