Future battleground states

[Alcon]

Correction, Perot made it a "swing" state.

Not totally.

Clinton still improved the numbers between 1988 and 1992, no matter what. Yes, if you added Perot's numbers to Bush's, you would get a victory of 60-38. But do you really think Bush would have won nationally 56-43 if it hadn't been for Perot?

I doubt it.

There was movement.

[tinman64]

Yes, there was movement in MT, even before 1992.   Dukakis did extremely well there in 1988; his 46.20 percent in MT was better than his 45.65 percent nationally.  MT was competitive in 1988 without the benefit of a strong third party candidacy.

Perot's percentage of the vote in MT was halved in 1996 from his 1992 total, and MT still almost went for Clinton (Dole won it by less than 3%).

I'm not saying Bayh could win MT in 2008, but he certainly could do as well if not better than Dukakis did there.

[True Democrat]

Yes, there was movement in MT, even before 1992.   Dukakis did extremely well there in 1988; his 46.20 percent in MT was better than his 45.65 percent nationally.  MT was competitive in 1988 without the benefit of a strong third party candidacy.

Perot's percentage of the vote in MT was halved in 1996 from his 1992 total, and MT still almost went for Clinton (Dole won it by less than 3%).

I'm not saying Bayh could win MT in 2008, but he certainly could do as well if not better than Dukakis did there.

I agree there is a very small movement in Montana towards the Democrats, but Dukakis did so well because of the farm crisis.

[7,052,770]

Texas, if hispanics keep coming in and vote mostly Democratic.  Montana perhaps, but I still don't see it flipping anytime soon.  None of these are that likely probably.

[BobOMac2k2]

I was referring to the Deep south, and people who are considered that.

[ian]

I voted for South Dakota.  But Texas, North Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana could all go.  And even Mississippi.... eventually.

[Ebowed]

I don't see how Rhode Island will be a swing state in the next couple elections.  It was one of very few that voted for Carter in 1980.  The only times it has not voted Democratic in the last forty-five years were in 1972 and 1984, both of which were landslides where Republicans got 49 states.

That said, I voted for Texas, but after reading what someone else said that it is a state of one-party control, that really is quite correct.  However, I believe under the right circumstances a Democrat could take Texas, as well as Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, and all of the other solid GOP states in the South.

[AuH2O]

The GOP has won 49 states twice in the last 40 years, so for Republicans a lot of states swing.

Democrats are certainly not going to take Mississippi unless the parties are completely realigned they were in the 60s, or any other solid GOP states for that matter.

[opebo]

The GOP has won 49 states twice in the last 40 years, so for Republicans a lot of states swing.

Democrats are certainly not going to take Mississippi unless the parties are completely realigned they were in the 60s, or any other solid GOP states for that matter.

It is precisely because the GOP has altered itself to solidify the South that it cannot again win 49 states, 'unless the parties are completely realigned' as 'they were in the 60s'.  As long as the party is dominated by the Southern Religious Right, several states will be out of its reach:

[12th Doctor]

I mostly agree with that map, although New Jersey, Connecticut, and Delaware could swing if it were a major Republican landslide

Major?  Try about 54%.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

shift those states 4 points toward the Republicans (which would be 54% nationally), and Kerry would've still won all 3.

[The Duke]

You guys don't get hispanic voters.

Texas hispanics are mostly from northern Mexico, states like Chihuahua and Caohuila.  They voted for FOx in mexico's election and tend to be more economically conservative.  Most latino voters are economically liberal and socially conservative, but vote on economic issues.  Texas hispanics are almost exclusively from the more conservative areas fo Mexico and are socially conservative but economically centrist or right.

Texas is dominated by the GOP at every level: President, Governor, state officials, Senators, congressional delegation, state legislature, everything.  This came about AFTER hispanics became a bigger factor in Texas, not before.  This means that Texas is not Republican because old whites still outvote young latinos.  Texas will not vote for another Democrat for PResident for at least 20 years, maybe not in our lifetimes.

[A18]

shift those states 4 points toward the Republicans (which would be 54% nationally), and Kerry would've still won all 3.

Actually, that would be 55% nationally, but it's still reasonable to expect that those states could go Republican in a 54% election.