Toss Up States

[barfbag]

At last we have our final category. Ohio has long been the heart of battleground states as the political center of the universe. It's been a long time since they voted for a losing candidate and back then the parties and issues were different. They still remain a couple points to the right except for in 2004. The northeastern part of the state is very similar to the northeast. In the southern part of the state, Ohio becomes more like the south. The rest of the state is very much Midwestern. There's unions, farms, social conservatives, an older population, and many college students. Colorado was light red for Bush and light Blue for Obama. There's certainly been a trend in Colorado, but it's not done being a battleground state. Still it's only a couple points left of center. What makes these states so competitive?

Ohio
Colorado

[Devils30]

It really has been a very consistent swing state despite huge movement in most of the country since the 1950s. Ohio is relatively pro-union but not quite as much as Michigan and Pennsylvania. It is also a little whiter than those two and has more of a southern influence than other midwestern state. This has affected elections as we've seen SE Ohio and south central Ohio (outside Hamilton County) trend R. On the other hand, the counter trends in Columbus toward Dems have more or less cancelled out the GOP gains in rural Ohio.
The Toledo area is the most interesting to watch going forward. Obama barely lost anything from his 2012 margin here and ran well ahead of Bush's performances. That being said, the auto-bailout probably helped him a good deal. The political leanings of the future are up for debate, although Hillary could be a strong candidate. Ottawa County right next to Toledo has picked the presidential winner in most elections. Demographically it isn't even close to a microcosm of America but it sure represents the country and state well.

[barfbag]

It really has been a very consistent swing state despite huge movement in most of the country since the 1950s. Ohio is relatively pro-union but not quite as much as Michigan and Pennsylvania. It is also a little whiter than those two and has more of a southern influence than other midwestern state. This has affected elections as we've seen SE Ohio and south central Ohio (outside Hamilton County) trend R. On the other hand, the counter trends in Columbus toward Dems have more or less cancelled out the GOP gains in rural Ohio.
The Toledo area is the most interesting to watch going forward. Obama barely lost anything from his 2012 margin here and ran well ahead of Bush's performances. That being said, the auto-bailout probably helped him a good deal. The political leanings of the future are up for debate, although Hillary could be a strong candidate. Ottawa County right next to Toledo has picked the presidential winner in most elections. Demographically it isn't even close to a microcosm of America but it sure represents the country and state well.

All of this is true. Regardless of swings and trends, Ohio has swung and trended in the perfect ways to remain close almost every time. They're a little more purple than they were before the 90's. If you look at the 50's-70's you'll see it was light red with the exception of 1964 which isn't really indicative of anything due to the huge landslide. In 1976 we saw the first big sign of Ohio's centrism in presidential elections. However, despite the landslides of the 80's, we can start to see even more signs of purple. It's a great representation of our nation.

1952 R +2
1956 R +6
1960 R +7
1964 D +4
1968 even
1972 D +1
1976 R +2
1980 even
1984 even
1988 R +4
1992 R +8
1996 R +2
2000 R +4
2004 D +1
2008 R +2
2012 R +1

[Devils30]

Still, with Virginia trending D and states like Florida having favorable demographics for Dems it is impossible for the GOP to win without it. Dems don't need OH although the path is still quite narrow without it.

[barfbag]

Still, with Virginia trending D and states like Florida having favorable demographics for Dems it is impossible for the GOP to win without it. Dems don't need OH although the path is still quite narrow without it.

Some of these states won't last in the groups they're in.

[DS0816]

It really has been a very consistent swing state despite huge movement in most of the country since the 1950s. Ohio is relatively pro-union but not quite as much as Michigan and Pennsylvania. It is also a little whiter than those two and has more of a southern influence than other midwestern state. This has affected elections as we've seen SE Ohio and south central Ohio (outside Hamilton County) trend R. On the other hand, the counter trends in Columbus toward Dems have more or less cancelled out the GOP gains in rural Ohio.
The Toledo area is the most interesting to watch going forward. Obama barely lost anything from his 2012 margin here and ran well ahead of Bush's performances. That being said, the auto-bailout probably helped him a good deal. The political leanings of the future are up for debate, although Hillary could be a strong candidate. Ottawa County right next to Toledo has picked the presidential winner in most elections. Demographically it isn't even close to a microcosm of America but it sure represents the country and state well.

All of this is true. Regardless of swings and trends, Ohio has swung and trended in the perfect ways to remain close almost every time. They're a little more purple than they were before the 90's. If you look at the 50's-70's you'll see it was light red with the exception of 1964 which isn't really indicative of anything due to the huge landslide. In 1976 we saw the first big sign of Ohio's centrism in presidential elections. However, despite the landslides of the 80's, we can start to see even more signs of purple. It's a great representation of our nation.

1952 R +2
1956 R +6
1960 R +7
1964 D +4
1968 even
1972 D +1
1976 R +2
1980 even
1984 even
1988 R +4
1992 R +8
1996 R +2
2000 R +4
2004 D +1
2008 R +2
2012 R +1

Since 1964, the bellwether state of Ohio has performed no greater than five points in spread with its statewide margin vs. the national numbers. Its bellwether status is no accident. And no coincidence. You look at elections and numbers, you find there are states that come close the national number. But Ohio is supreme in doing election after election. In the past the Old Confederacy was the base for the Democrats and the north/northeast/pacific was the base for the Republicans. It's now the opposite. In the past, plenty of Republicans could have mathematically reached the 270 mark without Ohio. Nowadays, with the base of the Republican party in the Old Confederacy, no Republican is going to reach 270 and election to the presidency of the United States without Ohio. It, along with Florida, is the Republican party's lifeline.

[barfbag]

It really has been a very consistent swing state despite huge movement in most of the country since the 1950s. Ohio is relatively pro-union but not quite as much as Michigan and Pennsylvania. It is also a little whiter than those two and has more of a southern influence than other midwestern state. This has affected elections as we've seen SE Ohio and south central Ohio (outside Hamilton County) trend R. On the other hand, the counter trends in Columbus toward Dems have more or less cancelled out the GOP gains in rural Ohio.
The Toledo area is the most interesting to watch going forward. Obama barely lost anything from his 2012 margin here and ran well ahead of Bush's performances. That being said, the auto-bailout probably helped him a good deal. The political leanings of the future are up for debate, although Hillary could be a strong candidate. Ottawa County right next to Toledo has picked the presidential winner in most elections. Demographically it isn't even close to a microcosm of America but it sure represents the country and state well.

All of this is true. Regardless of swings and trends, Ohio has swung and trended in the perfect ways to remain close almost every time. They're a little more purple than they were before the 90's. If you look at the 50's-70's you'll see it was light red with the exception of 1964 which isn't really indicative of anything due to the huge landslide. In 1976 we saw the first big sign of Ohio's centrism in presidential elections. However, despite the landslides of the 80's, we can start to see even more signs of purple. It's a great representation of our nation.

1952 R +2
1956 R +6
1960 R +7
1964 D +4
1968 even
1972 D +1
1976 R +2
1980 even
1984 even
1988 R +4
1992 R +8
1996 R +2
2000 R +4
2004 D +1
2008 R +2
2012 R +1

Since 1964, the bellwether state of Ohio has performed no greater than five points in spread with its statewide margin vs. the national numbers. Its bellwether status is no accident. And no coincidence. You look at elections and numbers, you find there are states that come close the national number. But Ohio is supreme in doing election after election. In the past the Old Confederacy was the base for the Democrats and the north/northeast/pacific was the base for the Republicans. It's now the opposite. In the past, plenty of Republicans could have mathematically reached the 270 mark without Ohio. Nowadays, with the base of the Republican party in the Old Confederacy, no Republican is going to reach 270 and election to the presidency of the United States without Ohio. It, along with Florida, is the Republican party's lifeline.

I'd like to correct myself if possible. For 1992 I said R +8 when it was really R +4. I was looking at it as Bush winning by two instead of Clinton.

[barfbag]

Still, with Virginia trending D and states like Florida having favorable demographics for Dems it is impossible for the GOP to win without it. Dems don't need OH although the path is still quite narrow without it.

No matter what Florida has always trended back in favor of Republicans though. I listed them on the barely Republican thread because while it's winnable for Democrats it's clearly fools gold in terms of a tipping point where it would be center-left.

1996 R +2
2000 R +1
2004 R +2
2008 R +4
2012 R +3

There was a big trend from the mid 80's to the mid 90's, but after that it's been fool's gold in the sense of a tipping point. Anyways this is a conversation for a different thread. Take a look at barely Republican states if you guys want.

[Devils30]

I agree at the moment that Florida leans R. But predicting the future involves looking at census numbers too and the states growing Hispanic population along with a decent number of blacks moving in should worry the GOP a bit. I doubt FL would be D+ before 2020 but Hillary is a strong candidate here.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Tossups include the tipping point states and the competetive states. Tipping point includes 268 vote CO, NV and Iowa. A combo of Ohio 18, NH 4 or Va 13 to cross 270, will get Dems in the White House excluding Florida but Florida is now voting with winner so tipping points aren't that important.

[barfbag]

Tossups include the tipping point states and the competetive states. Tipping point includes 268 vote CO, NV and Iowa. A combo of Ohio 18, NH 4 or Va 13 to cross 270, will get Dems in the White House excluding Florida but Florida is now voting with winner so tipping points aren't that important.

Well competitive states change a little each time. If we're talking about a generalization of competitive states, then we're dealing with a big category. We'd have to include ME, NH, PA, OH, IN, MI, WI, MN, IA, MO, TN, NC, VA, FL, MT, CO, NM, NV, OR. Recently I've moved FL to toss up with OH and CO to barely Democrat if it's worth fussing about.

[jaichind]

1952 R +2
1956 R +6
1960 R +7
1964 D +4
1968 even
1972 D +1
1976 R +2
1980 even
1984 even
1988 R +4
1992 R +8
1996 R +2
2000 R +4
2004 D +1
2008 R +2
2012 R +1

Are you sure about 1988 and 1992.  By my calculation 1998 should be R+3 and 1992 R+4

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I would give a list f my toss-up states, butit would probably get ridiculed by the liberal loons who dominate this forum, so I will stay mum on the subject.

[TDAS04]

Colorado will be lean Democratic soon.  Ohio will remain a tossup for now, even if it trends slightly Republican. 

[5280]

Colorado will be lean Democratic soon.  Ohio will remain a tossup for now, even if it trends slightly Republican. 

I think CO will be just a bellwether state, along with OH and FL, not lean D or R.

[ElectionsGuy]

Colorado will be lean Democratic soon.  Ohio will remain a tossup for now, even if it trends slightly Republican. 

I think CO will be just a bellwether state, along with OH and FL, not lean D or R.

I agree, Obama most likely had a special weapon when it came to white voters (especially in college towns and resorts) because it was one of the few states where Obama (2012) did worse among white voters than Kerry (2004). But as of 2008 and 2012, it had a D tilt. Anytime before that it had a republican lean.

[barfbag]

1952 R +2
1956 R +6
1960 R +7
1964 D +4
1968 even
1972 D +1
1976 R +2
1980 even
1984 even
1988 R +4
1992 R +8
1996 R +2
2000 R +4
2004 D +1
2008 R +2
2012 R +1

Are you sure about 1988 and 1992.  By my calculation 1998 should be R+3 and 1992 R+4

Yes I corrected myself on 1992 being R +4. I realize now I was off by one for 1988 as well. For 1992 I went off of thinking Bush won Ohio by two. For 1988 I just typed 4 instead of 3.

[barfbag]

Colorado will be lean Democratic soon.  Ohio will remain a tossup for now, even if it trends slightly Republican. 

I think CO will be just a bellwether state, along with OH and FL, not lean D or R.

I should've put it in the barely Democrat group with Nevada and New Mexico. New Mexico will soon lean Democrat or be a light blue state where it's likely Democrat.

[Devils30]

You can't call Florida a bellwether right at the moment. On election night it was clear Obama was going to win even had Romney carried Florida narrowly.

[Person Man]

It is very challenging, if not impossible, for anyone to win without Ohio or Colorado. In an election where the parties split the two, the election result will not be certain by Wednesday at dawn.

[DS0816]

You can't call Florida a bellwether right at the moment. On election night it was clear Obama was going to win even had Romney carried Florida narrowly.

Oh, I absolutely do categorize the state of Florida as a bellwether.

I've noted that the Sunshine State has carried for all winners, except with the Democratic pickup presidential victors of 1960 and 1992, since the year 1928. Right around that time, the state's population changes became very noticeable. And throughout the decades, Florida eventually rose to its current slot at No. 4. And it's about to overtake New York for No. 3.

Every election since 1996 has seen Florida carry by a margin no greater than five percentage points in spread from the national numbers. But, there were also election cycles from 1928 forward in which the state played it closely. In between there were presidential winners who were enormously popular to a point they won Florida by margins at least 10 points in addition to their national margin. (Think of George Bush in 1988. It helped him narrowly hold the state, by about 2 points, when became unseated by Bill Clinton in 1992.)


Here were the results of the last five election cycles of 1996 to 2012:

1996 U.S. PRESIDENT: Bill Clinton (D, re-elected)
1996 POPULAR VOTE: D+8.52
1996 FLORIDA: D+6.36 (pickup)
1996 SPREAD: 2.16%

2000 U.S. PRESIDENT: George W. Bush (R, pickup)
2000 POPULAR VOTE: D+0.52/R–0.52
2000 FLORIDA: R+0.01 (pickup)
2000 SPREAD: 0.53%

2004 U.S. PRESIDENT: George W. Bush (R, re-elected)
2004 POPULAR VOTE: R+2.46 (pickup)
2004 FLORIDA: R+5.01
2004 SPREAD: 2.55%

2008 U.S. PRESIDENT: Barack Obama (D, pickup)
2008 POPULAR VOTE: D+7.26 (pickup)
2008 FLORIDA: D+2.81 (pickup)
2008 SPREAD: 4.45%

2012 U.S. PRESIDENT: Barack Obama (D, re-elected)
2012 POPULAR VOTE: D+3.85
2012 FLORIDA: D+0.88
2012 SPREAD: 2.97%


From 1928 to 1992, here were the results of the spreads:

1928 U.S. PRESIDENT: Herbert Hoover (R)
1928 POPULAR VOTE: R+17.41
1928 FLORIDA: R+16.71 (pickup)
1928 SPREAD: 0.70%

1932 U.S. PRESIDENT: Franklin Roosevelt (D, pickup)
1932 POPULAR VOTE: D+17.76 (pickup)
1932 FLORIDA: D+49.64 (pickup)
1932 SPREAD: 31.88%

1936 U.S. PRESIDENT: Franklin Roosevelt (D, re-elected)
1936 POPULAR VOTE: D+24.26
1936 FLORIDA: D+52.20
1936 SPREAD: 27.94%

1940 U.S. PRESIDENT: Franklin Roosevelt (D, re-elected)
1940 POPULAR VOTE: D+9.96
1940 FLORIDA: D+48.02
1940 SPREAD: 38.06%

1944 U.S. PRESIDENT: Franklin Roosevelt (D, re-elected)
1944 POPULAR VOTE: D+7.50
1944 FLORIDA: D+40.64
1944 SPREAD: 33.14%

1948 U.S. PRESIDENT: Harry Truman (D, full term)
1948 POPULAR VOTE: D+4.48
1948 FLORIDA: D+15.19
1948 SPREAD: 10.71%

1952 U.S. PRESIDENT: Dwight Eisenhower (R, pickup)
1952 POPULAR VOTE: R+10.85 (pickup)
1952 FLORIDA: R+10.02 (pickup)
1952 SPREAD:  0.83%

1956 U.S. PRESIDENT: Dwight Eisenhower (R, re-eleced)
1956 POPULAR VOTE: R+15.40
1956 FLORIDA: R+14.54
1956 SPREAD: 0.86%

1960 U.S. PRESIDENT: John Kennedy (D, pickup)
1960 POPULAR VOTE: D+0.17 (pickup)
1960 FLORIDA: R+3.02
1960 SPREAD: 3.19%

1964 U.S. PRESIDENT: Lyndon Johnson (D, full term)
1964 POPULAR VOTE: D+22.58
1964 FLORIDA: D+12.30 (pickup)
1964 SPREAD: 10.28%

1968 U.S. PRESIDENT: Richard Nixon (R, pickup)
1968 POPULAR VOTE: R+0.70 (pickup)
1968 FLORIDA: R+9.60 (pickup)
1968 SPREAD: 8.90%

1972 U.S. PRESIDENT: Richard Nixon (R, re-elected)
1972 POPULAR VOTE: R+23.15
1972 FLORIDA: R+44.11
1972 SPREAD: 20.96%

1976 U.S. PRESIDENT: Jimmy Carter (D, pickup)
1976 POPULAR VOTE: D+2.06 (pickup)
1976 FLORIDA: D+5.29 (pickup)
1976 SPREAD: 3.23%

1980 U.S. PRESIDENT: Ronald Reagan (R, pickup)
1980 POPULAR VOTE: R+9.74 (pickup)
1980 FLORIDA: R+17.02 (pickup)
1980 SPREAD: 7.28%

1984 U.S. PRESIDENT: Ronald Reagan (R, re-elected)
1984 POPULAR VOTE: R+18.22
1984 FLORIDA: R+30.66
1984 SPREAD: 12.44%

1988 U.S. PRESIDENT: George Bush (R)
1988 POPULAR VOTE: R+7.73
1988 FLORIDA: R+22.36
1988 SPREAD: 14.63%

1992 U.S. PRESIDENT: Bill Clinton (D, pickup)
1992 POPULAR VOTE: D+5.56 (pickup)
1992 FLORIDA: R+1.89
1992 SPREAD: 7.45%


In the last five election cycles, Florida has been no greater than five points in spread from the national margin. Noted already. That's a better trendline than the previous 17 cycles in which 12 of them resulted in carriage by 10 points and more beyond the popular-vote margin with the statewide of Florida. Yet, all but two of those elections from 1928 to 1992 saw the state go for the winner. 1996 was the start of a new trend. In the past, a Republican would win Florida excessively (meaning that pickup winner George W. Bush should not have struggled to win it over in 2000), and a Democrat would also win Florida excessively (when the party's base was in the south; it's 1960 marked that the starting point of the GOP tilt though Jimmy Carter won it above his national margin).

Of the Top 10 populous states, which have been carrying for the winners over long terms, right now it is Ohio and Florida which reliably go with either party and produce outcomes close to the national results. (King-making bellwether Ohio has been within five points in all elections since 1964, which marked its current unbroken streak of carrying for the winners.) This cannot be said of California (which voted for all winners but three during the 25 elections of 1900 to 1996); Texas (which was on a roll from 1928 to 1988, getting it "wrong" only in 1968); New York (which was more a bellwether in late-19th century to parts of the 20th century; an excellent record no less); Illinois (which was a bellwether from when the GOP first competed in 1856 going through the end of the 20th century); Pennsylvania (which, from all its presidential-participating elections, has a record of backing the winners on average of four of every five cycles); Georgia (which has a pitiful record because, as I observed, it supported just 15 of 25 winners from 1912 to 2008 and got it "wrong" again in 2012); Michigan (which boasts a similar record to Pa. but with a couple more errors and five disagreements with Pa. which included one state having a major-party candidate who didn't carry the other state from three cycles; the Wolverine State has been reliable three of every four cycles on average and seemed to have bellwether-like margins in 1984 and 1988, thus news media erroneously having described it as a "swing state"); and North Carolina (with seven errors from 1912 to 2012).

Yes, in this era where presidential winners are not carrying four of every five states on average, I'm more inclined to describe Florida (with Ohio) as being among a precious few bellwether states. The way the electoral map is shaking out nowadays, no Republican nominee for the presidency of the United States is going to win election without the carriage of Florida. (Ditto with Ohio.) But when the Democratic party prevails, Florida will carry anyway even without mathematically needing it (which is the way it was when the Democrats had the south and every prevailing Republican from 1928 going forward carried the Sunshine State anyway without mathematical necessity). Florida is trending with country. (As are Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado. Next up: North Carolina.)

[barfbag]

I could call Florida a bellwether state, but with all things being equal it would vote Republican.

[Person Man]

I could call Florida a bellwether state, but with all things being equal it would vote Republican.

Republicans are definitely much more organized there. They know that they need Florida more than the Democrats.

[barfbag]

I could call Florida a bellwether state, but with all things being equal it would vote Republican.

Republicans are definitely much more organized there. They know that they need Florida more than the Democrats.

I can't believe Florida went for Obama. I've lived there and at the state level it's safe Republican.

[Person Man]

I could call Florida a bellwether state, but with all things being equal it would vote Republican.

Republicans are definitely much more organized there. They know that they need Florida more than the Democrats.

I can't believe Florida went for Obama. I've lived there and at the state level it's safe Republican.

Yeah. Even some of the more urban coastal areas seemed more like Wyoming. Then again, there are a lot Democrats there. They are just hard to organize.