Conservatives have been in denial about Virginia for years

[barfbag]

It's not crazy but if you look at those 40 years only one Democrat was voted out of office and one Republican.

True, but if you look at the only two Democrats to win, they were both Southern moderate Democrats that could eat into the Republican base and they got help from outside factors.  Carter was just able to edge out Ford, even though no one ever elected Ford to anything and it was following the whole Nixon scandal.  Clinton was able to beat Bush the elder mainly due to a very strong 3rd party candidate, Perot, that took a good portion of the conservative vote away from Bush. 

Actually ... Since Truman, we've only had two Democratic Presidents that weren't conservative Southern Democrats, Kennedy and Obama.  In that period of time it's always been Democrats that had to put up a candidate that appealed well to moderate Republicans.  To win they had to steal votes from the Republican base.  Now it looks like the shoe is on the other foot.

If we can't eat into the north, then we'll be stuck under 300 EV. PA, NH, and possibly ME are the only winnable ones unless Christie runs and then NJ.

[barfbag]

NM and Ohio as well as Ia and NH is Hillary country. The GOP winning strategy isn't there in Ohio as we can see Bush needed 20 percent of the Black vote in Ohio. The others can be argued.

No one has a lock on it three years out.

[barfbag]

… I get bothered sometimes when one thinks that one party will dominate for a generation or more (which is the aspiration of many D's around here too). Its pretty unprecedented and hasn't happened since post Lincoln.…

Your response wasn't directed at me. But I can say that a part of what you're touching on is what I find intriguing. I think not too many forum posters with their impressive knowledge historically concerning the Electoral College had that before they arrived here. (Oh, some did!) What I will admit is that I didn't notice five, ten, twenty years ago that the country has had many periods of living in realigning elections in which one party was dominant with winning the presidency.  

I am a believer in Walter Dean Burnham's 30- to 40-year estimate of "cycles." That there is at least one catalyst which prompts a change that lasts for a long term. From when the Republican party first competed in 1856, those realigning elections began in 1860 (Republican; 7 of the next 9 cycles). The ones which followed were in 1896 (Republican; 7 of the next 9); 1932 (Democratic; 7 of the next 9); 1968 (Republican; 7 of the next 10); and I'll add to this 2008 (Democratic).

Realigning presidential periods were cited even before the Republicans of the 1850s. Though forum poster barfbag alluded to a pattern where one party tends to win no more than [2] consecutive cycles before a party-flipping of the White House, barfbag also has acknowledged, to some extent, cycles which went beyond two in a row. The last realignment saw a three-peat for the Republicans, with all from the 1980s, and no realigning presidential period—pitting Team Red-vs.-Team Blue—has had a limit of just two. Mathematically it cannot play out that way.

Do you think we're in a realignment period? If you look at the 1970's and 1980's we see most states were or would have been trending especially if not for such landslides. However, in the 1990's and 2000's most states stayed about the same and had the same competitive battleground states. However, in the last two elections it's beginning to look like we'll be living in an age where we have 5 maybe but no more than 10 battleground states for each cycle. Some states are trending as well. Are we in another period of transition?

[barfbag]

Do you think we're in a realignment period? If you look at the 1970's and 1980's we see most states were or would have been trending especially if not for such landslides. However, in the 1990's and 2000's most states stayed about the same and had the same competitive battleground states. However, in the last two elections it's beginning to look like we'll be living in an age where we have 5 maybe but no more than 10 battleground states for each cycle. Some states are trending as well. Are we in another period of transition?

I think we're in the middle of a demographic transition and at the beginning of a transition that's going to happen in the Republican party because of it.  If you do a quick comparison between 2000 and 2012, you'll see that Romney did better with Republicans than Bush, 93% vs. 91%, and better with Independents, 50% vs. 48%, yet Romney lost by almost 4%. It's not that it's becoming impossible for Republicans to win.  It's just becoming slightly harder each passing election, building up tension within the party.  Sooner or later that tension is going to break, and there's going to be a shift.   

People are also wanting a more personal message than before.

[barfbag]

NM and Ohio as well as Ia and NH is Hillary country. The GOP winning strategy isn't there in Ohio as we can see Bush needed 20 percent of the Black vote in Ohio. The others can be argued.

No one has a lock on it three years out.

Of course not, but I do think the OC's overarching point that NM/OH/IA/NH will be friendlier to Hillary, whereas she may face more obstacles in CO and VA, is definitely on point. She's very strong with Hispanics and rural, working-class whites, but weak with latte liberal westerners common in Colorado and young suburban white professionals common in Virginia; both groups might go for Christie over her.

If they run against each other it should shake things up. She'll have to campaign in trending states like CO, NM, and NV while Christie would have to back track in the Appalachians.

[barfbag]

Nevada Exit Polls

White (64%) = 56% Romney, 43% Obama
Hispanic (19%) = 71% Obama, 24% Romney
Black (9%) = 92% Obama, 6% Romney
Asian (5%) = 50% Obama, 47% Romney

Wow, that Asian vote is radically out of whack compared to the national number of 73 to 26 in favor of Obama.   Perhaps a mix of a very unusual mix of Asian ethnicities in NV and the inaccuracy of exit polls.

Yep. Even if it is inaccurate its very interesting (its only 5% of the electorate though). However, where republicans really need to do better is with Hispanics. A combination of whites getting more republican and Hispanics getting more republican will make Nevada a true swing state against like it was for the Bush elections.

Wow very interesting.

[barfbag]

Now that we're on Nevada instead of Virginia, there will come a day where the state is light blue even when Republicans win elections. It's just a matter of when. Right now it's just left of center and hopefully will be in play for one or two more elections.

[barfbag]

A combination of whites getting more republican and Hispanics getting more republican will make Nevada a true swing state against like it was for the Bush elections.

Yeah but unfortunately for your side, the opposite trends are manifesting themselves, and more importantly, whites are declining significantly as a share of the electorate everywhere and particularly in states like Nevada.

Whites are becoming increasingly unimportant and also becoming more conservative, or as you would put it "more racist". The emphasis for Hispanics will increase year by year for a while. And while it does, its important that either they vote more republican or whites vote republican enough to make up for their losses in the electorate.

Very true and conservative doesn't mean racist.

[barfbag]

They've been in denial about a lot of other things for a lot longer, though.

like what

[barfbag]

2000 was actually a subtle warning to the Virginia GOP. Despite an easy Bush victory, Gore did better than Clinton in Fairfax, Henrico, Chesterfield, Richmond City and barely lost ground in Prince William and Loudoun despite an 8 point national swing right.

I think the trend actually goes back to 1988. Here are the estimates I came up with. Keep in mind that in 1984 Reagan won by enough that trends aren't necessarily indicative. You're right about 2000 being the first noticeable sign. Bush actually won by about the same amount in 2004 as he did in 2000 even though he did better nationally.

1980 R +21
1984 R +7
1988 R +12
1992 R +11
1996 R +10
2000 R +9
2004 R +6
2008 R<1
2012 D<1

[barfbag]

VA was R+3 in 1980 not R+21. The demographic changes began well before the 2000s though and similar trend in the Atlanta suburbs down in Georgia should be a warning sign for the GOP too.

I look bad now. I was thinking of the margin of victory in the other direction.