Seems like Republicans don't have a base region anymore

[Non Swing Voter]

If you look at the country as 5 distinct regions:

1) Northeast (Delaware to Maine)

2) West Coast (Oregon, Washington, California, Hawaii, Alaska)

3) Midwest (Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, etc.)

4) Great Plains/Rocky Mountain (Montana, Colorado, Utah, etc.)

5) South (Virginia to Florida + Texas, etc.)

Democrats clearly win 1 and 2.

The two parties split 3 and 4, Democrats a little stronger in 3 and Republicans a little stronger in 4.

Republicans used to easily win 5, now they just start out with a big advantage there but have to compete in three of the largest electoral prizes: Florida, Virginia, North Carolina... and in the future might have to compete in Georgia and possibly Texas.

It seems like Democrats undoubtedly have an advantage in Presidential elections as they have 2 base regions and Republicans don't have any solid regions anymore.

During the Bush Jr. Presidency, Republicans talked about how Democrats were not a national party.  The reverse seems to be true now.  Democrats can clearly compete and win in every region of the country (Northeast, West, Midwest - Illinois, South - FL, VA, Rockies - Colorado).  Republicans cannot compete in huge electoral expanses (Northeast, West).

In short, Republicans seriously need to change their message fast.  2016 isn't going to be the election where angry homophobic white guys save them.

[illegaloperation]

Republicans are quite strong in the Great Plains and the Appalachia.

[hopper]

Mountain West, and some of the Midwest/Southwest-east (Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, The Dakotas, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Missouri, Texas, Louisiana, SC, Kentucky, Tennesee, Mississippi, and Alabama, and Georgia) is their base now. Florida is competitive but slipping away. They can win CO with not running on extremism on immigration and modifying  themselves on taxes. Besides CO has been erratic in its PVI for like the last 30 years at least

The GOP does nothing in the Upper Midwest(except for Indiana), Northeast (except for New Hampshire.) Mid-Atlantic: North Carolina and Virginia  are competitive but trending D and VA has gone for Obama the last 2 cycles.

West Coast: California: no not happening. The GOP have too many problems there in that state. Their problems in CA pretty much highlight their problems nationally with the demographic changes in the country and their hard right-ism.  Oregon is too hard to win but W. was pretty competitive there. WA State: Republicans just not competitive there statewide.

The GOP's regional problems: West Coast, Northeast, and Upper Midwest.

[barfbag]

This is yet again wishful liberal thinking. Our base has always been the great plains and in the last generation the deep south. In 2002 people could've said the Democrats don't have a base region anymore. It's called bias.

[Non Swing Voter]

Republicans are quite strong in the Great Plains and the Appalachia.

Yeah - but depending how you define those borders, Democrats can even compete there.

Appalachia - democrats can win Pennsylvania. 

Great Plains - Democrats can win Colorado, Nevada.

Compare that to Republicans who can't win a single west coast state or a single northeastern state (they really don't compete in New Hampshire anymore).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

BY what definition is Nevada in the Great Plains? Even Colorado only has a small part in the Plains and that is the most Republican part of the state.

[opebo]

The premise of the original post is correct - the GOP doesn't dominate any single 'region' anymore, but that doesn't matter that much: it still has a base of 191 EV, which is only 21 EV short of the Democrat's base:

[Sol]

By OP's logic, you could say the Dems don't have a base anymore, because pubbies are competitive in PA and AK.

[barfbag]

Republicans are quite strong in the Great Plains and the Appalachia.

Yeah - but depending how you define those borders, Democrats can even compete there.

Appalachia - democrats can win Pennsylvania. 

Great Plains - Democrats can win Colorado, Nevada.

Compare that to Republicans who can't win a single west coast state or a single northeastern state (they really don't compete in New Hampshire anymore).

The right candidate can win NH and PA. Christie could win NJ. In a blowout, we could win ME.

[opebo]

Republicans are quite strong in the Great Plains and the Appalachia.

Yeah - but depending how you define those borders, Democrats can even compete there.

Appalachia - democrats can win Pennsylvania. 

Great Plains - Democrats can win Colorado, Nevada.

Compare that to Republicans who can't win a single west coast state or a single northeastern state (they really don't compete in New Hampshire anymore).

The right candidate can win NH and PA. Christie could win NJ. In a blowout, we could win ME.

Sure, but that's not the same as what he said.  You're talking about possibles that are incredibly unlikely, but he's talking about Democrats winning CO, NV, PA - this is extremely likely to occur in most elections.

[barfbag]

Republicans are quite strong in the Great Plains and the Appalachia.

Yeah - but depending how you define those borders, Democrats can even compete there.

Appalachia - democrats can win Pennsylvania. 

Great Plains - Democrats can win Colorado, Nevada.

Compare that to Republicans who can't win a single west coast state or a single northeastern state (they really don't compete in New Hampshire anymore).

The right candidate can win NH and PA. Christie could win NJ. In a blowout, we could win ME.

Sure, but that's not the same as what he said.  You're talking about possibles that are incredibly unlikely, but he's talking about Democrats winning CO, NV, PA - this is extremely likely to occur in most elections.

CO and NV are winnable by either party still.

[ElectionsGuy]

Republicans are quite strong in the Great Plains and the Appalachia.

Yeah - but depending how you define those borders, Democrats can even compete there.

Appalachia - democrats can win Pennsylvania.  

Great Plains - Democrats can win Colorado, Nevada.

Compare that to Republicans who can't win a single west coast state or a single northeastern state (they really don't compete in New Hampshire anymore).

The right candidate can win NH and PA. Christie could win NJ. In a blowout, we could win ME.

Sure, but that's not the same as what he said.  You're talking about possibles that are incredibly unlikely, but he's talking about Democrats winning CO, NV, PA - this is extremely likely to occur in most elections.

If you consider most elections comfortable Dem victories. Nevada, Colorado, and Penn state are all very much winnable in good republican 2012-esque years. It hasn't happened since 1988 though.

[Non Swing Voter]

By OP's logic, you could say the Dems don't have a base anymore, because pubbies are competitive in PA and AK.

Yeah, that's comparable.  I mean, Republicans have had good luck in Pennsylvania, just like Democrats have had with Florida, Virginia, Nevada, Colorado lately... *blank stare*

[Non Swing Voter]

Republicans are quite strong in the Great Plains and the Appalachia.

Yeah - but depending how you define those borders, Democrats can even compete there.

Appalachia - democrats can win Pennsylvania. 

Great Plains - Democrats can win Colorado, Nevada.

Compare that to Republicans who can't win a single west coast state or a single northeastern state (they really don't compete in New Hampshire anymore).

The right candidate can win NH and PA. Christie could win NJ. In a blowout, we could win ME.

Sure, but that's not the same as what he said.  You're talking about possibles that are incredibly unlikely, but he's talking about Democrats winning CO, NV, PA - this is extremely likely to occur in most elections.

CO and NV are winnable by either party still.

I can buy Colorado, but Nevada is long gone.  It wasn't even close this last time and Obama started moving people out of the state early if I recall correctly.

[Non Swing Voter]

The premise of the original post is correct - the GOP doesn't dominate any single 'region' anymore, but that doesn't matter that much: it still has a base of 191 EV, which is only 21 EV short of the Democrat's base:

Yeah but when so many electoral votes are pre-determined, those 21 electoral votes are huge.

Also, I'd argue some of those gray states lean substantially democrat now.

[Person Man]

The premise of the original post is correct - the GOP doesn't dominate any single 'region' anymore, but that doesn't matter that much: it still has a base of 191 EV, which is only 21 EV short of the Democrat's base:

Yeah but when so many electoral votes are pre-determined, those 21 electoral votes are huge.

Also, I'd argue some of those gray states lean substantially democrat now.

At this rate, it seems that the Democrats will have the advantage they are now no more advantaged than when Bush was at this point. The staying power of the Democrats' coalition will depend if "there's a there" between now and Christmas. This was the time, 8 years ago, where it all went to sh**t for Bush and Co.

[cheesepizza]

Republicans are quite strong in the Great Plains and the Appalachia.

Indeed.  We're also awesome in the Bible belt.

[Gass3268]

Republicans have Appalachia and the Great Plaines, while the Democrats have the Northeast and the Pacific Coast. The differences in population is why the Democrats currently have an advantage.