why are there so many more ultrarepublican than ultrademocrat states?

[freepcrusher]

If one judges by a state with a +10 PVI, then here are the states that could be classified as safe republican:
West Virginia
Kentucky
Oklahoma
Kansas
Nebraska
South Dakota
North Dakota
Wyoming
Utah
Idaho
Texas
Arkansas
Louisiana
Alabama
Tennessee

Safe Democrat:
Rhode Island
New York
Maryland
Vermont
Hawaii

would this concentration of republican votes, benefit the democrats in the senate?

[Sbane]

It helps Democrats in the electoral college for sure.

[God-Empress Stacey I of House Abrams]

It helps Democrats in the electoral college for sure.

Indeed. Republican votes are heavily concentrated in States making up roughly 1/3 of the Electoral College, which allows all the bellwhether States to tilt Democratic.

That said, this phenomenon is less pronounced now than it was in 2008. In 2012, most safe-D (like NY, RI, MD) and safe-R States (MS, LA, AK) trended Democrat, while almost all the swing States (NH, CO, PA, WI, IA) had a slight R trend.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

An ultra- region of whatever political flavor typically needs to be have something that dominates their state's economy as well as its politics.

Most of the ultra-Republican states are dominated by extractive industries such as mining and agriculture where the less government that gets in the way, the better for those industries, so it's not surprising they tilt in favor of a party that favors minimal involvement in the economy.

[CountryClassSF]

This is why I don't understand why Democrats are for National Popular Vote and Republicans are against it.

I've always been in favor of a NPV because it makes the most sense ---- Now that  it appears the Electoral College benefits Dems in terms of population, you wonder if these numbers will soon shift?

I just feel like in civilized society it should be one person, one vote. The electoral college system is dumb and outdated.

A presidential campaign needs to be national

[Sol]

This is why I don't understand why Democrats are for National Popular Vote and Republicans are against it.

I've always been in favor of a NPV because it makes the most sense ---- Now that  it appears the Electoral College benefits Dems in terms of population, you wonder if these numbers will soon shift?

I just feel like in civilized society it should be one person, one vote. The electoral college system is dumb and outdated.

A presidential campaign needs to be national

The Democrats prefer it because of 2000.

[Craigo]

This is why I don't understand why Democrats are for National Popular Vote and Republicans are against it.

I've always been in favor of a NPV because it makes the most sense ---- Now that  it appears the Electoral College benefits Dems in terms of population, you wonder if these numbers will soon shift?

I just feel like in civilized society it should be one person, one vote. The electoral college system is dumb and outdated.

A presidential campaign needs to be national

The Democrats prefer it because of 2000.

And because the electoral system is antiquated, convoluted, and undemocratic, no matter which party it benefits.

[Badger]

NY And CA are close to that 10% threshold, and obviously would bring in a huge chunk of the country's voters.

[Franzl]

An ultra- region of whatever political flavor typically needs to be have something that dominates their state's economy as well as its politics.

Most of the ultra-Republican states are dominated by extractive industries such as mining and agriculture where the less government that gets in the way, the better for those industries, so it's not surprising they tilt in favor of a party that favors minimal involvement in the economy.

Since when do the Republicans favor minimal involvement in the economy?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Certainly less than the Democrats do Franzl.

[Sbane]

I'm confused how this is calculated because by the margins California seems like a safer state than Kentucky.

Both Kentucky and California voted for Romney and Obama by the same margins. So it would seem that they are about as safe a state for their party as the other, but you have to account for the overall vote. Obama won by about 4 points in 2012, and it is likely that in a race where the popular vote was tied, Kentucky would be more Republican than California would be Democratic.

[Blackacre]

This is why I don't understand why Democrats are for National Popular Vote and Republicans are against it.

I've always been in favor of a NPV because it makes the most sense ---- Now that  it appears the Electoral College benefits Dems in terms of population, you wonder if these numbers will soon shift?

I just feel like in civilized society it should be one person, one vote. The electoral college system is dumb and outdated.

A presidential campaign needs to be national

I'm for NPV because I believe in fair elections, regardless of partisan implications. Also why I'm anti-gerrymandering, and will be forever, regardless of which party uses it more

[mileslunn]

Its true in 2004, there were far more states where Bush got over 60% than Kerry, however this time around, there were more states where Romney got over 60%, but fewer electoral votes in those states than the ones Obama got over 60%

Romney over 60%

Idaho (4)
Utah (6)
Wyoming (3)
Nebraska (5)
Kansas (6)
Oklahoma (7)
Arkansas (6)
Kentucky (
Alabama (9)
West Virginia (5)

Total 10 states - 59 electoral votes

Obama over 60%

California (55)
Hawaii (4)
Vermont (3)
Massachusetts (11)
Rhode Island (4)
New York (29)
Maryland (10)
DC (3)

Total 7 states + DC for 119 electoral votes.

Now back in 2004, Bush got over 60% in Texas, while Kerry got under 60% in both California and New York thus why on the electoral vote it was heavily tilted towards Kerry.  In 2008 Obama got over 60% in more states than McCain in addition to the 7 this time, he also got over 60% in Illinois, Connecticut, and Delaware which is an additional 30 EV.  By contrast McCain only got over 60% in Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and Alabama.

So in summary there really aren't a whole lot more ultra Republican than ultra Democrat.  I think the big difference is unlike 20, 30, or 40 years ago, the nation is a lot more polarized so most sections tend to go strongly towards one side or another as opposed to being competitive.  You have the Northeast and West Coast which are solidly Democrat (Alaska being solidly GOP, while Pennsylvania and New Hampshire are the only competitive states left in the Northeast), while the South is solidly GOP (Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida and to a lesser extent Georgia being the exceptions).  The plains are also solidly GOP while the Mountain West is a mix of swing states (Colorado and Nevada, while New Mexico lean Democrat and Arizona lean Republican) and solid GOP (Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana).  The Midwest is really the only area that is still very competitive as most states asides from the Plains states which are solidly GOP or Illinois which is solidly Democrat most are winneable by both parties under the right conditions.  Indiana and Missouri have strong GOP tilts, while Minnesota and Michigan have a slight Democrat lean.  Wisconsin and Iowa are usually only a percentage or two more Democrat than the nation as a whole while Ohio is still totally a swing state.