States that you don't see going R or D in the next 2 decades? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 08, 2024, 07:44:07 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 100% pro-life no matter what)
  States that you don't see going R or D in the next 2 decades? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: States that you don't see going R or D in the next 2 decades?  (Read 1241 times)
Redban
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,997


« on: March 07, 2020, 09:40:54 AM »

Presidential elections? New York, Massachusetts. Though they’ll vote Republican for mayors and governors. There’s also D.C.

I wouldn’t go so far with Hawaii. Bush in 2004 gave a half-hearted attempt at the state, sending Dick Cheney there once. Obama, the favorite son, drew up big margins. But still, it’s a small state that wouldn’t need much to swing.

Illinois and California weren’t that far out of reach, pre-Obama 2008. 2 decades doesn’t rule out the possibility of flipping.
Logged
Redban
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,997


« Reply #1 on: March 07, 2020, 09:50:52 PM »

Massachusetts will not go Republican and Wyoming will not go Democrat. I could actually see California or New York flipping in landslide conditions but not Massachusetts



California? Yeah, in a big landslide in the GOP’s favor, it definitely could. Bush in early-2000 even considered putting resources here (he lost here by about 12%, which is relatively good). It has a long history of being a GOP state before 1992.

But New York?

NYC is just too big and too left wing. Even when the Republicans won here (sans 1972), it was by getting 30-35% in NYC and then killing it everywhere else, like in Long Island, Westchester, & Upstate. But now, they lose NYC by an 80% clip and they struggle to get 40% in Long Island and Westchester. While they still can win upstate, the population there has been dropping each year (while NYC is still growing a lot). Upstate can’t overcome the deficit from NYC. There are about twice as many registered Democrats in the state.
Logged
Redban
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,997


« Reply #2 on: March 09, 2020, 11:12:52 AM »
« Edited: March 09, 2020, 11:25:53 AM by Redban »

Surprised no one has NY as flippable by 2040.  Upstate eventually voting like West Texas/reverse Bronx is not a crazy scenario.

Too many Democratic spots upstate -- Albany, Troy, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, etc. An 80% margin is a stretch. Furthermore, Upstate NY is losing population each year while NYC continues to grow.

Right now, the GOP gets 50/50 in Upstate NY in a good year. If upstate trends far right and they start to pull 65%-70% upstate, they might get a max net gain of 1.5 million (750,000 GOP gain, 750,000 Dems loss). The GOP loses NYC by 2 million most elections. So that still leaves a deficit of about a half-million votes or so.

Basically, the GOP won't be able to contest New York State unless they also start winning the suburbs in NY. That means Long Island and Westchester. Republicans are losing these places 65-35%.

When Reagan won NY in the 1980s, he did so by:

1). Holding down the NYC deficit to 60% (instead of the ridiculous 75-80% right now)
2). Winning upstate by 2-10% points (i.e. - slightly)
3). Winning Westchester & Long Island by about 20% (i.e. - blowout). These areas gave him about 300,000 - 400,000 votes over Carter in 1980.

Westchester & Long Island are the key, not Upstate. And these areas are trending Democrat right  now.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.02 seconds with 12 queries.