Barely Republican States

[barfbag]

Yes, I'm going to include Virginia in here for argument's sake. Mostly this is because I'm using voter data from recent elections as opposed to trends. When looking at the Obama elections Virginia was purplish blue and for the Bush elections they were light red. What is it about Florida that makes it just right of the center in pretty much every single election? Having lived in Florida and being very familiar with their demographics, there is a larger elderly population and it's location in the deep south makes it a socially conservative state. There is also a right to work guaranteed in the state's constitution leading to a very Republican economy. Demographic wise there are a lot of minorities and environmental problems that not even the most conservative people can ignore. Let's have some fun and talk about barely Republican or reddish purple states.

Florida
Virginia

[barfbag]

Virginia is your classic urban vs. rural voter split.  The vast majority of counties lean strongly in support for Republicans, but they have a much lower population that the left(ish) leaning counties with large urban centers.  A lot of states are like this and more are on their way as urban centers grow at a much greater rate than their rural counterparts.  Having said that, Virginia's urban centers are not that left leaning when compared to those in the North East, just when compared to the rest of Virginia.  They are not so far gone that they are safe for Dems.  They could easily turn for Republicans with the right candidate.  It's just not likely to happen consistently. 

It's become a lot like Pennsylvania because there's a few Democratic counties in presidential elections with the rest being Republican. Without their urban areas, Virginia is still light red. You pretty much know what you're going to get in Virginia and it's just a matter of voter turnout in cities.

[barfbag]

I really don't think you can classify VA as barely Republican anymore.

It's on its way out. It will move to toss up after the next election. These things take time.

[barfbag]

1988 R +14
1992 R +10
1996 R +9
2000 R +9
2004 R +6
2008 R <1
2012 D <1

The trend goes back a quarter of a century. Actually it looks like it sped up again until this past cycle. I think it becomes like New Hampshire or at the most New Jersey. Hopefully, we'll be able to make up for it somewhere else.

[barfbag]

1988 R +14
1992 R +10
1996 R +9
2000 R +9
2004 R +6
2008 R <1
2012 D <1

The trend goes back a quarter of a century. Actually it looks like it sped up again until this past cycle. I think it becomes like New Hampshire or at the most New Jersey. Hopefully, we'll be able to make up for it somewhere else.

This is not indicative that the trend will continue, it could reverse or go in cycles in the future. I highly doubt it will be as Democratic as New Jersey (in the next 20 years) but I do think it could go as far as maybe Oregon.

That's what I was saying when I mentioned New Hampshire as a comparison. New Jersey might be a little further than it will go.

[barfbag]

1988 R +14
1992 R +10
1996 R +9
2000 R +9
2004 R +6
2008 R <1
2012 D <1

The trend goes back a quarter of a century. Actually it looks like it sped up again until this past cycle. I think it becomes like New Hampshire or at the most New Jersey. Hopefully, we'll be able to make up for it somewhere else.

This is not indicative that the trend will continue, it could reverse or go in cycles in the future. I highly doubt it will be as Democratic as New Jersey (in the next 20 years) but I do think it could go as far as maybe Oregon.

That's what I'm saying. I said New Hampshire which is similar to Oregon in numbers at the presidential level and New Jersey is a worst case scenario. Hopefully we can make up for it with Pennsylvania or learn how to campaign in Virginia.

[barfbag]

I think VA is going to take PA's place in the "toss-up" category.  They are very similar as far as the reasons behind the closeness of Presidential elections.  It's not like they have a large population of moderates that can swing from one side to the other depending on the election.  They have a large population of strong conservatives and liberals that are almost equal, with a small population of moderates that can tip the balance either way.  However, it looks like PA's liberal population has grown to the point that it fairly easily outnumbers the conservatives.  They're not really a toss-up anymore.  They're a pretty safe bet for Dems now.

I don't think Virginia will ever get to where Maryland is. Pennsylvania is lean Democrat, Democratic battleground, or purplish blue. They're pretty much in the same place as where they were in the 50's still.

[barfbag]

I really don't think you can classify VA as barely Republican anymore.

It's on its way out. It will move to toss up after the next election. These things take time.

It did that in 08........

It depends on how far back you go. I look back to the least amount of times each party has won an even amount of elections.

[barfbag]

I really don't think you can classify VA as barely Republican anymore.

Correct.


Virginia is now a presidential bellwether state. So is Colorado.

North Carolina is next. Look at its Partisan Voting ID from 2000 to 2012, and the level of red has moved enough to make it "Competitive." Had Barack Obama won re-election with traditional gains in popular-vote margin and electoral-vote score, he would have carried the state again in 2012.


As for others, it's going to be up to the Democrats to move the bar. Georgia, Arizona, Texas, Montana, and South Carolina are ones they haven't truly contested. Former bellwether Missouri and Indiana, a Democratic pickup for Obama in 2008, produced same-level margins over the last two elections.

Georgia's trend is very minor. Did you know it only trended 0.7% from 2008-2012. That's less than Pennsylvania and we don't hear Democrats getting worked up about it. Arizona has always been fool's gold too. I mean really state is pretty much where it's been for a quarter of a century. It would be stupid to compete in Texas for either party until one of them is up by about 17 nationally. Montana shows signs of purple in years where Republicans lose big. South Carolina is another fool's gold if you could even call it that.

South Carolina:

2000 R +15
2004 R +14
2008 R +16
2012 R +15

Do you really call this a trend?

Georgia:

1992  R +6
1996  R +9
2000- Bush's evangelical base raised a lot of money.
2004- Bush's evangelical base raised a lot of money.
2008  R +12
2012  R +11

This one point trend isn't worth even speaking of. I know Romney did as well as Bush or better amongst evangelical conservatives. However, votes doesn't always reflect money being raised for each candidate.