Blue state turning red

[Duke David]

The items listed above are all states (+ D.C.) that voted Democratic in each presidential election from 1992 trough to 2008.

Which of them, in your estimation, could most possibly turn "red" in future presidential elections?

(You've only got one vote.)

[Person Man]

I'm going with Wisconsin. McCain did better in Pennsylvania and both states seem to have right-wing state government and at least Pennsylvania elects far-right senators (though allegedly so-called right-wing Montana has two Democrats for senators), but my gut tells me that Wisconsin would be easier to win because its smaller and easier to campaign in.

[Talleyrand]

Because of current issues, I am going with Wisconsin. Minnesota is becoming redder as the suburbs grow and enroach on traditionally Democratic territory and as the twin cities become less important. My understanding is that the biggest growth in Wisconsin is in Democratic-leaning areas like Madison and the southwestern region, but are these voters GOP-leaning?

[Duke David]

I wonder if Minnesota had a chance of turning red if Michele Bachmann would win the primaries or at least be the running mate.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Immediately, Wisconsin.

Long-term, no idea. Anything can happen.

[TeePee4Prez]

Immediately, Wisconsin.

Long-term, no idea. Anything can happen.

I would concur.  Anyone that says PA is total nonsense.  The fastest growing parts of PA are the bluest while the places rapidly losing population are the redder parts of PA. 

[Heimdal]

The three most obvious candidates are Wisconsin, New Jersey and Michigan.

Wisconsin: I concur with what earlier posters have written about the state. We will probably be more sure after the 2012 Election. Obama will probably win the state, but if the GOP takes the Senate seat of Herb Kohl, then we might be looking at a realignement.

New Jersey: I think this state will turn red, but it might take more time. The state lacks any large liberal cities (there is of course Newark, but Newark is increasingly less relevant), and Ocean county is growing.

Michigan: I am not as sure about Michigan, but the depopulation of Detroit is of course good for the GOP. They have a pretty right wing state government and a whole lot of Republicans in their Congressional delegation.

[Duke David]

Which wisecracker clicked on D.C?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Which wisecracker clicked on D.C?

Which wisecracker included D.C?

[Duke David]

When I started this poll I thought you'd click on Maine, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New Jersey or Delaware. Evidently, I was wrong.
Why do you all think Wisconsin will loose its Democratic voting tendencies?

Do they believe in creationism?
Do they demonize abortions?
Are they staunch churchgoers?
Do they want to gas homosexuals?
Would they let uninsured die?
Do they advocate climate change?

I actually consider the Wisconsinite quite decent.
Am I wrong?

[Guderian]

When I started this poll I thought you'd click on Maine, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New Jersey or Delaware. Evidently, I was wrong.
Why do you all think Wisconsin will loose its Democratic voting tendencies?

Wisconsin was the best Bush state that Bush never won. Then there's the recent GOP success in 2010, new ID laws, demographic trends that somewhat benefit Republicans etc.

[DS0816]

The items listed above are all states (+ D.C.) that voted Democratic in each presidential election from 1992 trough to 2008.

Which of them, in your estimation, could most possibly turn "red" in future presidential elections?

(You've only got one vote.)

With respect to you and this poll, the answer is this: for any of these to turn red in a presidential election, we would see a Republican elected having carried 80 percent of the states in this country. An overwhelming, national victory like what we used to get before the 1990s. (My answer is the same with the other thread's poll, touching on the same subject but asking for a scenario opposite of this one.)

[Duke David]

With respect to you and this poll, the answer is this: for any of these to turn red in a presidential election, we would see a Republican elected having carried 80 percent of the states in this country. An overwhelming, national victory like what we used to get before the 1990s. (My answer is the same with the other thread's poll, touching on the same subject but asking for a scenario opposite of this one.)

So, if I understand you right, to paraphrase, your response would be: never, except for a Republican landslide victory?

[Kevin]

I'd say PA & WI like other members for a number of both similar and different reasons. Also, I'll add NJ to the mix for a few reasons.

PA-One of the quintessential swing states due to demographic and geographical reasons. Hasn't voted Republican since 1988, although it hasn't voted for Democrat's by particularly comfortable margin's ether excluding 2008. Clinton never won above 50% here even when he was running for reelection with favorable circumstances and Gore/Kerry only won it by 2-4 points between them in 2000 and 2004 respectively. Before going big with the Democrats in the midterms of 2006 & Pres election of 2008.

While Pennsylvania swung hard against the Democrats in both 1994 & 2006, and poll's have shown it very close(currently) for 2012. Also, an electoral shift appears to be underway in PA from 2008 onwards where the blue collar, ethnic and traditionally Democratic counties around Pittsburgh seemed to be trending R hard. While the 2010 Midterm's show that the long running Democratic trend in the counties around Philly seems to be slowly reversing or has halted with previously Democratic voting moderates/indes giving the GOP another look with the Dem bad fortune's recently. Thus making things more unpredictable for 2012. Although, I'd still give Obama the edge at least for now in 2012.

WI-Highly unstable if Democratic leaning state politically. Hasn't voted Republican since 1984, supported Clinton barely in 1992 but supporting him strongly for reelection in 1996. Was predicted by most pundits and polls in 2000 and 2004 to go for Bush Jr. comfortably, but ended up going for Gore or Kerry barely.

While on the other hand swung very hard to the Republicans in 2006 by electing a cosnervative Tea-Parter to the Senate over a previously thought to be unbeatable liberal icon. Along with around 3 or so previously Democratic House seats flipping to the Pubbies. Combined with the near total obliteration of the WI Democratic party on the state/local level.  

However, poll's show that that even though many of the proposed Republican policies to be very unpopular in Wisconsin and Obama still leading Republicans here by decent margins. Given WI's vulnerability to political mood changes things could change here very easily and very quickly.

NJ-See PA, Republican's have been gradually crawling back in recent years in this state that went solidly D post-1992. GOP picked up the Governorship and a couple of Congressional seats here, and may pick up a Senate seat in the future? There were also some Dem worries about this state back in 2004 & 2006. Also, Obama's approval's here haven't been great and show in winning by much less then in 2008. Even though he still is on track to win here in 2012 as of now.    

[Nichlemn]

The items listed above are all states (+ D.C.) that voted Democratic in each presidential election from 1992 trough to 2008.

Which of them, in your estimation, could most possibly turn "red" in future presidential elections?

(You've only got one vote.)

With respect to you and this poll, the answer is this: for any of these to turn red in a presidential election, we would see a Republican elected having carried 80 percent of the states in this country. An overwhelming, national victory like what we used to get before the 1990s. (My answer is the same with the other thread's poll, touching on the same subject but asking for a scenario opposite of this one.)

You do realise that these states collectively account for nearly 40% of all states? So what you're saying is that if Republicans were to win a single one of them, they would necessarily have to win at least half of the rest? Never mind the fact that the time period specified is unbounded, so you're effectively saying that there's no chance that say, Wisconsin will ever go Republican in the next 100 years except in a landslide? Ridiculous.

[Minnesota Mike]

I wonder if Minnesota had a chance of turning red if Michele Bachmann would win the primaries or at least be the running mate.

Michele Bachmann would hurt not help a presidential ticket in Minnesota. She consistently under preforms other  Republicans in her district and she gets crushed by Obama in any state wide poll.

[5280]

I voted Wisconsin, clearly the trends will benefit the REP in another 10 years or so.  2nd choice, I picked Oregon, but the west part of the state (Portland area) will prevent that from happening anytime soon. That will counter balance east Oregon which votes much like Idaho.

[DS0816]

You do realise that these states collectively account for nearly 40% of all states? So what you’re saying is that if Republicans were to win a single one of them, they would necessarily have to win at least half of the rest?

I’m saying it’s not arbitrary.

1992 George Bush, unseated, held 18 states (36%) after winning 40 (80%) in his Election 1988.

When Bush Sr. lost 22 states while becoming unseated, a domino effect took hold geographically and politically. For instance: We haven’t seen many elections in which Vermont voted the same as Alabama and Mississippi. (The trio carried for 1872 Ulysses Grant, and they didn’t vote the same until 1972 Richard Nixon. Grant won 31 of 37 states: 83%. Nixon carried 49 of 50: 98%.) Bush carried Vt. in 1988 — the last year on record that state was in the Republicans’ column after supporting the party from their first election, in 1856, through to Bush Sr. It said no to 1964 Barry Goldwater and gave its sole Democratic vote to Lyndon Johnson (carriage of 44 of 50 states plus District of Columbia: 88%) while Ala. and Miss. — after first voting in 1820 and only disagreeing in 1840 — flipped for Goldwater.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. That is not what I’m saying.

In the other scenario, I pointed out as well the type of circumstance for which turning a state the opposite color from how it usually votes would likely play out. (There’s a difference between winning over a state — for a given election — from that of winning it over regularly. This red-and-blue states scenario became a thing of conscience with George W. Bush, in 2000, who failed to win back states his father, and their GOP predecessors, had carried routinely. But so many of today’s states have a partisan voting index beyond 15 percent.)

What I’m saying is this: You cannot retail one or two of these states, in the suggested listings in this thread and the other thread asking for just the opposite scenario. You can guess as to whether any of them will become future bellwethers. (Sure, use Wisconsin. Bellwether states tend to come from different areas. They evolve. But not rapidly.) So, for the most part, these listed states in both threads are in the same camp. Team Red. Team Blue.


Regarding the percentage of states carried, let’s look at the last 25 elections beginning in 1912, when we established New Mexico as the 47th and Arizona the 48th states admitted into the union.

• 80 percentile range of states carried: Elections 1912, 1928, 1932, 1936, 1952, 1956, 1964, 1972, 1980, 1984, and 1988.
• 70 percentile range of states carried: Elections 1920, 1924, 1940, and 1944 (Franklin Roosevelt won 38, in 1940, for 79%).
• 60 percentile range of states carried: Elections 1916, 1968, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004.
• 50 percentile range of states carried: Elections 1948 and 2008.
• 40 percentile range of states carried: Elections 1960 and 1976.


A repeating of your question:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Percentile range of losing candidacies of the 1990s and 2000s came close or reached that 40-percentile mark: Following the 1992 unseating of George Bush, 1996 Bob Dole won 19 states (38%). 2000 Al Gore, after two terms of Democrat Bill Clinton, held 20 states plus D.C. (40%). 2004 John Kerry won 19 states (38%). And 2008 John McCain, failing to hold the White House for the Republicans after two terms of George W. Bush, retained carriage of 22 states (44%).

Note that a combined 17 of the last 25 election cycles (68%) saw either an overwhelming level (80 percentile range of states were carried — well past the 400 mark in the Electoral College) or a respectfully strong level (60 percentile range of states won that didn’t reach 400; in the case of Bush Jr., not even 300). The 2008 election of Barack Obama, with 28 states (56%), still resulted in a 2-to-1 victory in the Electoral College not unlike his Democratic predecessor, 1992/1996 Bill Clinton. (Adjust the numbers for each decade: Clinton’s 1992 win of 370 electoral votes would have been 366 in 2008. Obama’s 2008 win of 365 electoral votes would have been 369 in 1992.)

For 11 of the last 25 elections boasting 80 percent of states carried: In those elections, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming voted for the winner in nearly every election from 1912 to 1956. (Utah, in 1912, and Wyo., in 1944, missed one each. Montana, which has voted the same as Colorado in every election since 1948, minus 2008, and has voted the same as Idaho since 1892, with exception of 1992, backed the winners in all five of those decades.) Absolutely perfect during that time was Arizona, because it voted for the winner in all. We had more national level winners in that period of five decades. But with 1960 going forward, those states — along with Oklahoma (wrong only in 1924, but not wrong again until 1976; it is now one of the Top 3 most-reliable GOP states) and, later, Texas (which voted for the winner in 10 cycles, 1928 to 1964, and picked up again from 1972 to 1988) — became strongly partisan. It took unviable or piss-poor candidacies to cause another round of 40-state [plus] landslides (1964, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988) to get them all (well, Goldwater managed to barely hold his home state).

While this happened, gradually the North — which used to vote Republican when the South voted Democratic — countered. Massachusetts turned on the Republicans in 1928 and voted GOP only for Dwight Eisenhower (1952: 39/48 states = 81%; 1956: 41/48 = 85%) and Ronald Reagan (1980: 44/50 = 88%; 1984: 49/50 = 98%). Minnesota — which, like Pennsylvania and Michigan, voted for all winning GOPs from 1860 Abraham Lincoln to 1956 Ike — had the Democratic candidacies for president or vice president in winning GOP years 1968, 1980, and 1984. 1972 is the last year that state voted Republican, when Richard Nixon won 49 states against unviable Democrat George McGovern.

Since 1992, we’ve gone five election cycles in which no presidential winner carried more than two-thirds of the states in this country. Among the 60 percentile range (1992/1996 Bill Clinton; 2000/2004 George W. Bush) have the bellwethers (or, if preferred, the battlegrounds or swing states) provided the key to stringing together victory in the Electoral College. (In the past, a 2008 type of election would have resulted in an 80-percentile range of states carried.) The cast of such characters [states] do evolve. But they don’t switch up that rapidly. So, that is why I maintain that if we’re going to see a presidential election, say in the next 20 years, in which a Republican gets elected and carries Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Jersey, Washington, Minnesota, Massachusetts … that winner will amass an 80 percentile range of states. If we see a presidential election outcome, say in the next 20 years, in which a Democrat gets elected and carries Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, South Carolina, South Dakota, North Dakota … that winner will emerge having carried an 80 percentile range of states. (Again, that level.)

[Nichlemn]

You do realise that these states collectively account for nearly 40% of all states? So what you’re saying is that if Republicans were to win a single one of them, they would necessarily have to win at least half of the rest?

I’m saying it’s not arbitrary.

1992 George Bush, unseated, held 18 states (36%) after winning 40 (80%) in his Election 1988.

When Bush Sr. lost 22 states while becoming unseated, a domino effect took hold geographically and politically. For instance: We haven’t seen many elections in which Vermont voted the same as Alabama and Mississippi. (The trio carried for 1872 Ulysses Grant, and they didn’t vote the same until 1972 Richard Nixon. Grant won 31 of 37 states: 83%. Nixon carried 49 of 50: 98%.) Bush carried Vt. in 1988 — the last year on record that state was in the Republicans’ column after supporting the party from their first election, in 1856, through to Bush Sr. It said no to 1964 Barry Goldwater and gave its sole Democratic vote to Lyndon Johnson (carriage of 44 of 50 states plus District of Columbia: 88%) while Ala. and Miss. — after first voting in 1820 and only disagreeing in 1840 — flipped for Goldwater.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. That is not what I’m saying.

In the other scenario, I pointed out as well the type of circumstance for which turning a state the opposite color from how it usually votes would likely play out. (There’s a difference between winning over a state — for a given election — from that of winning it over regularly. This red-and-blue states scenario became a thing of conscience with George W. Bush, in 2000, who failed to win back states his father, and their GOP predecessors, had carried routinely. But so many of today’s states have a partisan voting index beyond 15 percent.)

What I’m saying is this: You cannot retail one or two of these states, in the suggested listings in this thread and the other thread asking for just the opposite scenario. You can guess as to whether any of them will become future bellwethers. (Sure, use Wisconsin. Bellwether states tend to come from different areas. They evolve. But not rapidly.) So, for the most part, these listed states in both threads are in the same camp. Team Red. Team Blue.


Regarding the percentage of states carried, let’s look at the last 25 elections beginning in 1912, when we established New Mexico as the 47th and Arizona the 48th states admitted into the union.

• 80 percentile range of states carried: Elections 1912, 1928, 1932, 1936, 1952, 1956, 1964, 1972, 1980, 1984, and 1988.
• 70 percentile range of states carried: Elections 1920, 1924, 1940, and 1944 (Franklin Roosevelt won 38, in 1940, for 79%).
• 60 percentile range of states carried: Elections 1916, 1968, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004.
• 50 percentile range of states carried: Elections 1948 and 2008.
• 40 percentile range of states carried: Elections 1960 and 1976.


A repeating of your question:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Percentile range of losing candidacies of the 1990s and 2000s came close or reached that 40-percentile mark: Following the 1992 unseating of George Bush, 1996 Bob Dole won 19 states (38%). 2000 Al Gore, after two terms of Democrat Bill Clinton, held 20 states plus D.C. (40%). 2004 John Kerry won 19 states (38%). And 2008 John McCain, failing to hold the White House for the Republicans after two terms of George W. Bush, retained carriage of 22 states (44%).

Note that a combined 17 of the last 25 election cycles (68%) saw either an overwhelming level (80 percentile range of states were carried — well past the 400 mark in the Electoral College) or a respectfully strong level (60 percentile range of states won that didn’t reach 400; in the case of Bush Jr., not even 300). The 2008 election of Barack Obama, with 28 states (56%), still resulted in a 2-to-1 victory in the Electoral College not unlike his Democratic predecessor, 1992/1996 Bill Clinton. (Adjust the numbers for each decade: Clinton’s 1992 win of 370 electoral votes would have been 366 in 2008. Obama’s 2008 win of 365 electoral votes would have been 369 in 1992.)

For 11 of the last 25 elections boasting 80 percent of states carried: In those elections, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming voted for the winner in nearly every election from 1912 to 1956. (Utah, in 1912, and Wyo., in 1944, missed one each. Montana, which has voted the same as Colorado in every election since 1948, minus 2008, and has voted the same as Idaho since 1892, with exception of 1992, backed the winners in all five of those decades.) Absolutely perfect during that time was Arizona, because it voted for the winner in all. We had more national level winners in that period of five decades. But with 1960 going forward, those states — along with Oklahoma (wrong only in 1924, but not wrong again until 1976; it is now one of the Top 3 most-reliable GOP states) and, later, Texas (which voted for the winner in 10 cycles, 1928 to 1964, and picked up again from 1972 to 1988) — became strongly partisan. It took unviable or piss-poor candidacies to cause another round of 40-state [plus] landslides (1964, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988) to get them all (well, Goldwater managed to barely hold his home state).

While this happened, gradually the North — which used to vote Republican when the South voted Democratic — countered. Massachusetts turned on the Republicans in 1928 and voted GOP only for Dwight Eisenhower (1952: 39/48 states = 81%; 1956: 41/48 = 85%) and Ronald Reagan (1980: 44/50 = 88%; 1984: 49/50 = 98%). Minnesota — which, like Pennsylvania and Michigan, voted for all winning GOPs from 1860 Abraham Lincoln to 1956 Ike — had the Democratic candidacies for president or vice president in winning GOP years 1968, 1980, and 1984. 1972 is the last year that state voted Republican, when Richard Nixon won 49 states against unviable Democrat George McGovern.

Since 1992, we’ve gone five election cycles in which no presidential winner carried more than two-thirds of the states in this country. Among the 60 percentile range (1992/1996 Bill Clinton; 2000/2004 George W. Bush) have the bellwethers (or, if preferred, the battlegrounds or swing states) provided the key to stringing together victory in the Electoral College. (In the past, a 2008 type of election would have resulted in an 80-percentile range of states carried.) The cast of such characters [states] do evolve. But they don’t switch up that rapidly. So, that is why I maintain that if we’re going to see a presidential election, say in the next 20 years, in which a Republican gets elected and carries Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Jersey, Washington, Minnesota, Massachusetts … that winner will amass an 80 percentile range of states. If we see a presidential election outcome, say in the next 20 years, in which a Democrat gets elected and carries Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, South Carolina, South Dakota, North Dakota … that winner will emerge having carried an 80 percentile range of states. (Again, that level.)

That's a lot of words that mostly don't answer the questions there.

So your ultimate conclusion is that, based on a historical quirk of a small sample size, there's no way a candidate could win ~70% of the states?

[DS0816]

That's a lot of words that mostly don't answer the questions there.

I answered … and then some.

Don't you know what the word arbitrary means?

Link: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'll put it to you like this: Say with 2012, Barack Obama wins re-election with having in his column the likes of Texas, South Carolina, South Dakota, and North Dakota. If he were to win states like those, he would not surrender a single state carried in 2008, and he would end up with having carried 80 percent[ile range] of the states in this country. If he gets unseated by a Republican challenger who wins the likes of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, and Massachusetts, that GOP candidate will have carried 80 percent[ile range] of the states in the U.S.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Don't you mean red states turning blue?

To answer the question, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin.

[Nichlemn]

That's a lot of words that mostly don't answer the questions there.

I answered … and then some.

Don't you know what the word arbitrary means?

Link: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary

No, you answered with unnecessary length and vagueness, hoping confusion would cover up the inherent weakness of your argument. Or maybe you do in fact have a strong argument, but you're really bad at expressing it succinctly. Or regardless of the strength of your argument, you want to make it vague so you can feel smug if I can't figure out the purported relevance of your anecdotes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Still vague. Does carring the "likes of" those states include carrying just one of them?


How about a simple yes or no question to see what page you're on?

If the Republican candidate for President in 2012 wins Pennsylvania, do you think it is necessarily the case that this candidate will also win 40 or more states?

[5280]

This thread has become too much of a story, keep it simple guys.

[Mechaman]

Which wisecracker clicked on D.C?

(raises hand)

Because who the hell else was going to be the wisecracker?

[Duke David]

What exactly is so "red" about the Wisconsinites?

Are they devout Christians?

Do they oppose UHC?

Do they advocate foreign assignments?