Thoughts on OR, RI, and DE not safe per Politico's map?

[AN63093]

These three states are Safe Democratic in 2020, though Rhode Island and Delaware do have the potential of becoming swing states in the near future (say, the next 20-30 years or so). Delaware in particular, was a swing state throughout the 20th century, voting for the winner of all but three presidential elections (1916, 1932, 1948) during that century. It only lost its bellwether status in 2000 with Al Gore.

Rhode Island, yes. Delaware, no. Delaware is more diverse than Rhode Island and is growing a lot faster. I could see Connecticut flipping before Delaware.

This.  I don't think DE's past competitive history with completely different party systems is all that indicative of any future trend, and is in fact, almost entirely irrelevant.  RI and DE are completely different states in terms of demographics, population growth patterns, industrial/economic base, and so on; RI being considerably more favorable to the GOP in all those categories.  I am not sure where DE will "end up" in a few decades- but I would very surprised to see it follow in RI's footsteps and would find it much more likely that it becomes something of a mini-MD; the fact that it trended in 2016 notwithstanding (RI did so by a much higher %, twice as much, by the way).

RI is a different story, which could legitimately become a GOP state at some point in the future (obviously not in 2020 though).

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Oregon:

2000: +0.08% R
2004: +6.62% D
2008: +9.09% D
2012: +8.23% D
2016: +8.89%
Prediction: Trump needs to win by at least 8 points to take it.

Rhode Island:

2000: +28.56% D
2004: +23.21% D
2008: +20.54% D
2012: +23.60% D
2016: +13.42% D
Prediction: Trump would need to win by double digits to have even a slight chance.

Delaware:

2000: +12.54% D
2004: +10.06% D
2008: +17.72% D
2012: +14.77% D
2016: +9.29% D
Prediction: Trump would also need to win by double digits.

If Trump carried all of these, this is what the map would look like:

[Sorenroy]

Here's what their prediction looks like using Atlas colors and a regular map rather than a cartogram.

[NOVA Green]

Oregon:

2000: +0.08% R
2004: +6.62% D
2008: +9.09% D
2012: +8.23% D
2016: +8.89%
Prediction: Trump needs to win by at least 8 points to take it.

Rhode Island:

2000: +28.56% D
2004: +23.21% D
2008: +20.54% D
2012: +23.60% D
2016: +13.42% D
Prediction: Trump would need to win by double digits to have even a slight chance.

Delaware:

2000: +12.54% D
2004: +10.06% D
2008: +17.72% D
2012: +14.77% D
2016: +9.29% D
Prediction: Trump would also need to win by double digits.

If Trump carried all of these, this is what the map would look like:

Beef---

The problem here is that you are simply looking at it in terms of a binary DEM-REP PRES scene in '16, and ignoring the 3rd Party votes within that election.....

[LiberalDem19]

Trump's approval in Oregon in the CIVIQS poll is -26. Oregon's safe Dem. Republicans might come close in some future elections where Portland turnout is low, but they aren't gonna be winning anything of significance. The Oregon GOP is also extremely decimated.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

I have trouble believing that any of these states are in danger.  OR almost went for Bush in 2000, but it has been trending D at all levels. 

OR is one of the most secular states in the nation, and one of the most opposed to the Christian Right.  This is the insurance policy for Democrats at the Presidential level.  That, and the fact that Oregon hasn't elected a GOP Governor since 1982.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Oregon:

2000: +0.08% R
2004: +6.62% D
2008: +9.09% D
2012: +8.23% D
2016: +8.89%
Prediction: Trump needs to win by at least 8 points to take it.

Rhode Island:

2000: +28.56% D
2004: +23.21% D
2008: +20.54% D
2012: +23.60% D
2016: +13.42% D
Prediction: Trump would need to win by double digits to have even a slight chance.

Delaware:

2000: +12.54% D
2004: +10.06% D
2008: +17.72% D
2012: +14.77% D
2016: +9.29% D
Prediction: Trump would also need to win by double digits.

If Trump carried all of these, this is what the map would look like:

Beef---

The problem here is that you are simply looking at it in terms of a binary DEM-REP PRES scene in '16, and ignoring the 3rd Party votes within that election.....

The thing about 3rd party candidacies is that it's difficult to determine whether the strength of a 3rd party vote was the consequence of a strong 3rd party candidate, or a reflection of the base's frustration with the major party nominee.

There was nothing particularly special about Gary Johnson other than he gave conservative Trump skeptics a way to vote against Trump without actually voting for Hillary Clinton. Had Marco Rubio been the nominee, there might have been a 3rd party challenge from a hard-right, nativist/protectionist ticket, but Gary Johnson wouldn't have gotten any traction whatsoever. It was Trump's weakness that made the 3rd party ticket so popular.

Similarly, Nader 2000 was a symptom of Gore's weakness, and Perot 1992 was a symptom of HW's.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I have trouble believing that any of these states are in danger.  OR almost went for Bush in 2000, but it has been trending D at all levels. 

OR is one of the most secular states in the nation, and one of the most opposed to the Christian Right.  This is the insurance policy for Democrats at the Presidential level.  That, and the fact that Oregon hasn't elected a GOP Governor since 1982.

It's those darned hipsters in Portland. The GOP's best hope in Oregon is that the Democrats nominate some east coast moderate dinosaur who is completely out of touch with current cultural and social shifts, and opposes highly popular initiatives like marijuana legalization.

Fortunately there's no leading candidate who fits that description

[MidwesternMop]

I could see Delaware and Oregon being under 10 against the right candidates. If the Democrats nominate someone who can't turn out minority voters in Wilmington, it possibly could. Oregon could get under 10 if Trump maxes out Eastern Oregon while the Democrats don't turn out Portland.

[Calthrina950]

I have trouble believing that any of these states are in danger.  OR almost went for Bush in 2000, but it has been trending D at all levels. 

OR is one of the most secular states in the nation, and one of the most opposed to the Christian Right.  This is the insurance policy for Democrats at the Presidential level.  That, and the fact that Oregon hasn't elected a GOP Governor since 1982.

It's those darned hipsters in Portland. The GOP's best hope in Oregon is that the Democrats nominate some east coast moderate dinosaur who is completely out of touch with current cultural and social shifts, and opposes highly popular initiatives like marijuana legalization.

Fortunately there's no leading candidate who fits that description

This is definitely true. Multnomah County gave Clinton 73% of the vote in 2016, and provided her with her entire margin of victory in the state. If if were removed, Trump would have won Oregon by ~17,000 votes, per Redraw the States.com.

[morgankingsley]

I could see Delaware and Oregon being under 10 against the right candidates. If the Democrats nominate someone who can't turn out minority voters in Wilmington, it possibly could. Oregon could get under 10 if Trump maxes out Eastern Oregon while the Democrats don't turn out Portland.

Welcome to the forum

[W]

Hilarious, absolutely laughable. These 3 were closer in 2016 less so because Trump closed a gap (although he did gain slight ground from Romney) as much as they were losses from Clinton to third parties.

Here's D-R for all 3 2012 and 2016

OR:
2012 - 54-42
2016 - 50-39 (D -4, R -3)

RI:
2012 - 62-35
2016 - 54-39 (D -8, R +4)

DE:
2012 - 59-40
2016 - 53-42 (D-6, R +2)

In all of these states Democratic loss significantly outscores Republican gain. In Oregon both parties decline. These results were complete outliers, Clinton was rightfully despised in the Democratic base and no one was having her however to take that as some sort of suggestion that southern New England and Oregon are going to be up for grabs in this election is the most juvenile form of electoral analysis I've seen.

[Wazza [INACTIVE]]

Silly.

[cg41386]

Oregon:

2000: +0.08% R
2004: +6.62% D
2008: +9.09% D
2012: +8.23% D
2016: +8.89%
Prediction: Trump needs to win by at least 8 points to take it.

Rhode Island:

2000: +28.56% D
2004: +23.21% D
2008: +20.54% D
2012: +23.60% D
2016: +13.42% D
Prediction: Trump would need to win by double digits to have even a slight chance.

Delaware:

2000: +12.54% D
2004: +10.06% D
2008: +17.72% D
2012: +14.77% D
2016: +9.29% D
Prediction: Trump would also need to win by double digits.

If Trump carried all of these, this is what the map would look like:

Oregon went narrowly D in 2000, and these percentages don’t match the actual results, unless you’re calculating something else.