Hardest 2X Obama/2X Bush State for the GOP

[Skill and Chance]

Well, what do you think?

[ElectionsGuy]

1. Nevada
2. Virginia
3. Colorado
4. Ohio
5. Florida

2 and 3 are very close though. But yes Nevada is probably the hardest. Virginia is trending democratic and getting harder for the GOP every day. Colorado they can still win back with the right candidates and message for independents. Ohio and Florida are just Toss-ups that usually vote for the winner.

[Consciously Unconscious]

Nevada
Virginia
Colorado
Ohio
Florida

Colorado might be first if Hillary is the nominee.  Nevada is easily the hardest state for the GOP to win back.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Nevada.
Although if Republicans start aggressively courting Hispanics, then Virginia.

[TDAS04]

Nevada

[Cryptic]

Nevada.

[eric82oslo]

Nevada followed by Florida in my opinion.

[Skill and Chance]

Nevada followed by Florida in my opinion.

Fascinating.   Obama's performance with retirees was probably far below generic D.  I personally see Florida moving left of Ohio in 2016, but left of VA and CO?

[MATTROSE94]

Definately Virginia, with Nevada in a close second. Colorado, Ohio and Florida could all go Republican in 2016 with nearly every perspective Republican candidate except Ted Cruz (though Cruz could come close in Colorado, even against Hillary Clinton)

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Yeah, especially if Walker and Hillary are the 2016 nominees, I can see Florida being to the left of Ohio.
By 2020, who knows, PA could be to the right of FL if Republicans still aren't well with minorities.

[Skill and Chance]

The thing with VA is that it looks close but doesn't really seem close under the surface:

1.  The GOP probably can't get to 40% in Fairfax (Fairfax = 1/8th of the total vote) with it's current attitude toward the federal government.  This is essential to winning statewide.  Obenshain, for example had probably the best rural VA showing ever for an R, but he lost Fairfax 61/39 and that did him in.  If the GOP reaches out to federal employees, however, it could backfire severely in other states.

2.  African-American turnout seems to have increased permanently and black voters show no signs of moving away from Democrats.

3.  The relative lack of Hispanic voters means there wouldn't be as much to gain in VA from a Southwestern strategy that could win back the other Bush-Obama states.

[IceSpear]

1. Nevada
2. Virginia
3. Colorado
4. Ohio
5. Florida

2 and 3 are very close though. But yes Nevada is probably the hardest. Virginia is trending democratic and getting harder for the GOP every day. Colorado they can still win back with the right candidates and message for independents. Ohio and Florida are just Toss-ups that usually vote for the winner.

[greenforest32]

The population growth in Nevada really is crazy, relatively speaking:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_historical_population#Table_3:_1960.E2.80.932010

Name Nevada Arizona Florida Alaska Utah Colorado Texas Georgia California Washington Idaho New Hampshire Oregon New Mexico Hawaii North Carolina Virginia Delaware South Carolina Maryland Tennessee United States Wyoming Arkansas Oklahoma Vermont Minnesota Montana Alabama New Jersey Wisconsin Kentucky Connecticut Louisiana Indiana Missouri Maine Mississippi Kansas Nebraska Illinois Massachusetts Michigan Rhode Island South Dakota Ohio New York Pennsylvania Iowa North Dakota West Virginia District of Columbia

1960-POP 285,278 1,302,161 4,951,560 226,167 890,627 1,753,947 9,579,677 3,943,116 15,717,204 2,853,214 667,191 606,921 1,768,687 951,023 632,772 4,556,155 3,966,949 446,292 2,382,594 3,100,689 3,567,089 179,323,175 330,066 1,786,272 2,328,284 389,881 3,413,864 674,767 3,266,740 6,066,782 3,951,777 3,038,156 2,535,234 3,257,022 4,662,498 4,319,813 969,265 2,178,141 2,178,611 1,411,330 10,081,158 5,148,578 7,823,194 859,488 680,514 9,706,397 16,782,304 11,319,366 2,757,537 632,446 1,860,421 763,956

2010-POP 2,700,551 6,392,017 18,801,310 710,231 2,763,885 5,029,196 25,145,561 9,687,653 37,253,956 6,724,540 1,567,582 1,316,470 3,831,074 2,059,179 1,360,301 9,535,483 8,001,024 897,934 4,625,364 5,773,552 6,346,105 308,745,538 563,626 2,915,918 3,751,351 625,741 5,303,925 989,415 4,779,736 8,791,894 5,686,986 4,339,367 3,574,097 4,533,372 6,483,802 5,988,927 1,328,361 2,967,297 2,853,118 1,826,341 12,830,632 6,547,629 9,883,640 1,052,567 814,180 11,536,504 19,378,102 12,702,379 3,046,355 672,591 1,852,994 601,723

2010/1960 947% 491% 380% 314% 310% 287% 262% 246% 237% 236% 235% 217% 217% 217% 215% 209% 202% 201% 194% 186% 178% 172% 171% 163% 161% 160% 155% 147% 146% 145% 144% 143% 141% 139% 139% 139% 137% 136% 131% 129% 127% 127% 126% 122% 120% 119% 115% 112% 110% 106% 100% 79%

[eric82oslo]

Really impressive statistics, although I personally would have used the 2013 numbers, since a lot has changed since 2010, both with bottom states like North Dakota and Washington D.C. as well as with almost all of the top gainers.

But you're certainly proving a point of how important states like Florida, Arizona and Nevada will be in the next three presidential elections, those of 2016, 2020 and 2024, with especial emphasis on the redistricted elections of 2024.

[eric82oslo]

The population growth in Nevada really is crazy, relatively speaking:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_historical_population#Table_3:_1960.E2.80.932010

Changing greenforest's numbers from 2010 to 2013 numbers:

Name 1. Nevada 2. Arizona 3. Florida 4. Utah 5. Alaska 6. Colorado 7. Texas 8. Georgia 9. Washington 10. California 11. Idaho 12. Oregon 13. Hawaii 14. New Mexico 15. New Hampshire 16. North Carolina 17. Virginia 18. Delaware 19. South Carolina 20. Maryland 21. Tennessee 22. Wyoming United States 23. Arkansas 24. Oklahoma 25. Vermont 26. Minnesota 27. Montana 28. Alabama 29. New Jersey 30. Wisconsin 31. Kentucky 32. Louisiana 33. Connecticut 34. Indiana 35. Missouri 36. Mississippi 37. Maine 38. Kansas 39. Nebraska 40. Massachusetts 41. Illinois 42. Michigan 43. South Dakota 44. Rhode Island 45. Ohio 46. New York 47. North Dakota 48. Pennsylvania 49. Iowa 50. West Virginia 51. District of Columbia

1960-POP 285,278 1,302,161 4,951,560 890,627 226,167 1,753,947 9,579,677 3,943,116 2,853,214 15,717,204 667,191 1,768,687 632,772 951,023 606,921 4,556,155 3,966,949 446,292 2,382,594 3,100,689 3,567,089 330,066 179,323,175 1,786,272 2,328,284 389,881 3,413,864 674,767 3,266,740 6,066,782 3,951,777 3,038,156 3,257,022 2,535,234 4,662,498 4,319,813 2,178,141 969,265 2,178,611 1,411,330 5,148,578 10,081,158 7,823,194 680,514 859,488 9,706,397 16,782,304 632,446 11,319,366 2,757,537 1,860,421 763,956

2013-POP 2,790,136 6,626,624 19,552,860 2,900,872 735,132 5,268,367 26,448,193 9,992,167 6,971,406 38,332,521 1,612,136 3,930,065 1,404,054 2,085,287 1,323,459 9,848,060 8,260,405 925,749 4,774,839 5,928,814 6,495,978 582,658 313,914,040 2,959,373 3,850,568 626,630 5,420,380 1,015,165 4,833,722 8,899,339 5,742,713 4,395,295 4,625,470 3,596,080 6,570,902 6,044,171 2,991,207 1,328,302 2,893,957 1,868,516 6,692,824 12,882,135 9,895,622 844,877 1,051,511 11,570,808 19,651,127 723,393 12,773,801 3,090,416 1,854,304 646,449

2013/1960 (2010) 978% (947%) 509% (491%) 395% (380%) 326% (310%) 325% (314%) 300% (287%) 276% (262%) 253% (246%) 244.3% (236%) 243.9% (237%) 242% (235%) 222.2% (217%) 221.9% (215%) 219% (217%) 218% (217%) 216% (209%) 208.2% (202%) 207.4% (201%) 200% (194%) 191% (186%) 182% (178%) 176.5% (171%) 175% (172%) 165.7% (163%) 165.4% (161%) 161% (160%) 159% (155%) 150% (147%) 148% (146%) 147% (145%) 145.3% (144%) 144.7% (143%) 142% (139%) 141.8% (141%) 141% (139%) 140% (139%) 137.3% (136%) 137% (137%) 132.8% (131%) 132.4% (129%) 130% (127%) 128% (127%) 126.5% (126%) 124% (120%) 122% (122%) 119% (119%) 117% (115%) 114% (106%) 112.8% (112%) 112.1% (110%) 99.7% (99.6%) 84.6% (79%)

Several states have changed places since 2010. Among the more notable we find New Hampshire, which has slipped 3 places, and thus been surpassed by Oregon, Hawaii and New Mexico. On the other end of the scale, we find North and South Dakota. North Dakota has passed both Pennsylvania and Iowa, due to its formidable population growth for the past 4-5 years (the now famous oil boom), while its southern neighbour has experienced much of the same, thus surpassing Rhode Island on the list (a state which has actually experienced negative growth since 2010). We see that Arizona has more than 5-doubled its population since 1960. At the same time, Nevada comes awfully close to have 10-doubled its population, just as Florida comes awfully close to having 4-doubled or cuadroupled its population. Other changes since 2010, includes Washington having surpassed California, an impressive feat in itself. Hawaii has passed both New Mexico and New Hampshire. Wyoming now has faster growth rate than the US as a whole. Louisiana has surpassed Connecticut, just as Mississippi has passed by Maine. The really large state with the least growth at the moment, has to be Ohio, besides the obvious Michigan. Neither of these states are experiencing practically any growth at all over the past 3-5 years.

[eric82oslo]

If we want, we can divide the US states into three separate parts. Let's call them the 1st tier, the 2nd tier and the 3rd tier. Together, each of the tiers (should) have approximately the same number of Electoral Votes, + or - 179 EVs. So here they are:

1st Tier:

California: 55 EVs
Texas: 38 EVs
New York: 29 EVs
Florida: 29 EVs
Illinois: 20 EVs
Pennsylvania: 20 EVs
= 191 EVs

2nd Tier:

Ohio: 18 EVs
Georgia: 16 EVs
Michigan: 16 EVs
North Carolina: 15 EVs
New Jersey: 14 EVs
Virginia: 13 EVs
Washington: 12 EVs
Massachusetts: 11 EVs
Arizona: 11 EVs
Indiana: 11 EVs
Tennessee: 11 EVs
Missouri: 10 EVs
Maryland: 10 EVs
Wisconsin: 10 EVs
Minnesota: 10 EVs
= 188 EVs

3rd Tier:

Colorado: 9 EVs
Alabama: 9 EVs
South Carolina: 9 EVs
Louisiana: 8 EVs
Kentucky: 8 EVs
Oregon: 7 EVs
Oklahoma: 7 EVs
Connecticut: 7 EVs
Iowa: 6 EVs
Mississippi: 6 EVs
Arkansas: 6 EVs
Utah: 6 EVs
Kansas: 6 EVs
Nevada: 6 EVs
New Mexico: 5 EVs
Nebraska: 5 EVs
West Virginia: 5 EVs
Idaho: 4 EVs
Hawaii: 4 EVs
Maine: 4 EVs
New Hampshire: 4 EVs
Rhode Island: 4 EVs
Montana: 3 EVs
Delaware: 3 EVs
South Dakota: 3 EVs
Alaska: 3 EVs
North Dakota: 3 EVs
Washington D.C.: 3 EVs
Vermont: 3 EVs
Wyoming: 3 EVs
= 159 EVs

That leaves us with this map of political strenght in the US as of 2016 and 2020 go:

Explanation of the colors used:

Red: 1st Tier
Green: 2nd Tier
Blue: 3rd Tier

As we see, most of the 1st and 2nd Tier states are still located in the Eastern part of the US. Only four of these states are located in the West (California, Texas, Washington & Arizona), compared to 17 which are located in the East. We can also see that Obama won a majority of both the 1st as well as the 2nd Tier states both times he run. Obama did particularily well in the big Eastern states, but even in the West he won both the most important as well as the third most important state. Colorado is on the verge of breaking through from a 3rd Tier to becoming a 2nd Tier state - this is likely to take effect come 2024. Closest to breaking through from 2nd to 1st Tier status is Georgia, followed by North Carolina. But both states need at least a couple million more inhabitants for that fact to realize itself. It's hard to say if either state will be able to reach that level come the 2020 Census.

[eric82oslo]

Here's another take on the 3 Tiers America. 1st Tier involves Solidly Democratic states (as of 2012), 3rd Tier involves Solidly Republican states, while 2nd Tier involves all other states, those states that are most likely to decide the outcome of the 2016 election. I call them the Battleground States. The logic is the same as in the one I used above, that is dividing the 50 US states + D.C. into 3 categories of roughly the same importance/power (that is around 179-180 EVs per Tier).

1st Tier (Solidly Democratic)

1. Washington D.C.: 3 EVs
2. Hawaii: 4 EVs
3. Vermont: 3 EVs
4. New York: 29 EVs
5. Rhode Island: 4 EVs
6. Maryland: 10 EVs
7. Massachusetts: 11 EVs
8. California: 55 EVs
9. Delaware: 3 EVs
10. New Jersey: 14 EVs
11. Connecticut: 7 EVs
12. Illinois: 20 EVs
13. Maine: 4 EVs
14. Washington: 12 EVs
= 179 EVs

2nd Tier (Battleground States)

1. Virginia: 13 EVs
2. Ohio: 18 EVs
3. Colorado: 9 EVs
4. Pennsylvania: 20 EVs
5. New Hampshire: 4 EVs
6. Iowa: 6 EVs
7. Nevada: 6 EVs
8. Florida: 29 EVs
9. Wisconsin: 10 EVs
10. Minnesota: 10 EVs
11. Michigan: 16 EVs
12. North Carolina: 15 EVs
13. New Mexico: 5 EVs
14. Oregon: 7 EVs
15. Georgia: 16 EVs
= 184 EVs

3rd Tier (Solidly Republican)

1. Utah: 6 EVs
2. Wyoming: 3 EVs
3. Oklahoma: 7 EVs
4. Idaho: 4 EVs
5. West Virginia: 5 EVs
6. Arkansas: 6 EVs
7. Kentucky: 8 EVs
8. Alabama: 9 EVs
9. Nebraska: 5 EVs
10. Kansas: 6 EVs
11. Tennessee: 11 EVs
12. North Dakota: 3 EVs
13. South Dakota: 3 EVs
14. Louisiana: 8 EVs
15. Texas: 38 EVs
16. Alaska: 3 EVs
17. Montana: 3 EVs
18. Mississippi: 6 EVs
19. South Carolina: 9 EVs
20. Indiana: 11 EVs
21. Missouri: 10 EVs
22. Arizona: 11 EVs
= 175 EVs

The most controversial pick of these is whether Georgia belongs to the Battleground category or the Solidly Republican one. Yet to make the three groups as even in power and number of EVs as possible, it resulted that Georgia tilted a little bit more towards the Battleground after all. All states are ranked from strongest to weakest, while the Battleground states are ranked from most toss-up to least.

And the map.

It'll be interesting to see how many of these 15 Battleground states end up being (seriously) contested come 2016 as well as how many of the non-Battleground states might turn competitive as well in the end. According to early polls, non-competitive states like Louisiana, Kentucky, Arkansas and Texas could in fact turn surprisingly competitive, while I think there has been done none polls so far in much closer 2012 states like Arizona, Missouri and Indiana. On the Democratic side, only one of the Solidly Democratic states look competive so far (New Jersey), yet it's way too early to tell since there have been done practically no polling in those states at all, except for New York and New Jersey.

Basically you have three Battleground areas of the US. Ranked after importance, those are:

1. Midwest (+ New Hampshire)
2. Atlantic South
3. Latino West (+ Oregon)

In order of the cumulative number of EVs available, these regions include the following number of EVs and states:

1. Midwest; 84 EVs; Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan
2. Atlantic South; 73 EVs; Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, Georgia
3. Latino West; 27 EVs; Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon

All in all, the Midwest results only slightly stronger than the Atlantic South, in terms of presidential competitiveness. What we also see is that the enormous press focus on the swingy latino mountain states has been vastly exaggerated, as these states contain only a very few EVs each. This will, of course, change the day both Arizona and Texas will make themselves competitive. The Midwest and the Atlantic South contain as many as 157 EVs up for grabs, while the 3 Western Latino states + Oregon together only contain 27 EVs, not even reaching 20% of the number of the two other regions.

[Skill and Chance]

Here's another take on the 3 Tiers America. 1st Tier involves Solidly Democratic states (as of 2012), 3rd Tier involves Solidly Republican states, while 2nd Tier involves all other states, those states that are most likely to decide the outcome of the 2016 election. I call them the Battleground States. The logic is the same as in the one I used above, that is dividing the 50 US states + D.C. into 3 categories of roughly the same importance/power (that is around 179-180 EVs per Tier).

1st Tier (Solidly Democratic)

1. Washington D.C.: 3 EVs
2. Hawaii: 4 EVs
3. Vermont: 3 EVs
4. New York: 29 EVs
5. Rhode Island: 4 EVs
6. Maryland: 10 EVs
7. Massachusetts: 11 EVs
8. California: 55 EVs
9. Delaware: 3 EVs
10. New Jersey: 14 EVs
11. Connecticut: 7 EVs
12. Illinois: 20 EVs
13. Maine: 4 EVs
14. Washington: 12 EVs
= 179 EVs

2nd Tier (Battleground States)

1. Virginia: 13 EVs
2. Ohio: 18 EVs
3. Colorado: 9 EVs
4. Pennsylvania: 20 EVs
5. New Hampshire: 4 EVs
6. Iowa: 6 EVs
7. Nevada: 6 EVs
8. Florida: 29 EVs
9. Wisconsin: 10 EVs
10. Minnesota: 10 EVs
11. Michigan: 16 EVs
12. North Carolina: 15 EVs
13. New Mexico: 5 EVs
14. Oregon: 7 EVs
15. Georgia: 16 EVs
= 184 EVs

3rd Tier (Solidly Republican)

1. Utah: 6 EVs
2. Wyoming: 3 EVs
3. Oklahoma: 7 EVs
4. Idaho: 4 EVs
5. West Virginia: 5 EVs
6. Arkansas: 6 EVs
7. Kentucky: 8 EVs
8. Alabama: 9 EVs
9. Nebraska: 5 EVs
10. Kansas: 6 EVs
11. Tennessee: 11 EVs
12. North Dakota: 3 EVs
13. South Dakota: 3 EVs
14. Louisiana: 8 EVs
15. Texas: 38 EVs
16. Alaska: 3 EVs
17. Montana: 3 EVs
18. Mississippi: 6 EVs
19. South Carolina: 9 EVs
20. Indiana: 11 EVs
21. Missouri: 10 EVs
22. Arizona: 11 EVs
= 175 EVs

The most controversial pick of these is whether Georgia belongs to the Battleground category or the Solidly Republican one. Yet to make the three groups as even in power and number of EVs as possible, it resulted that Georgia tilted a little bit more towards the Battleground after all. All states are ranked from strongest to weakest, while the Battleground states are ranked from most toss-up to least.

And the map.

It'll be interesting to see how many of these 15 Battleground states end up being (seriously) contested come 2016 as well as how many of the non-Battleground states might turn competitive as well in the end. According to early polls, non-competitive states like Louisiana, Kentucky, Arkansas and Texas could in fact turn surprisingly competitive, while I think there has been done none polls so far in much closer 2012 states like Arizona, Missouri and Indiana. On the Democratic side, only one of the Solidly Democratic states look competive so far (New Jersey), yet it's way too early to tell since there have been done practically no polling in those states at all, except for New York and New Jersey.

Basically you have three Battleground areas of the US. Ranked after importance, those are:

1. Midwest (+ New Hampshire)
2. Atlantic South
3. Latino West (+ Oregon)

In order of the cumulative number of EVs available, these regions include the following number of EVs and states:

1. Midwest; 84 EVs; Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan
2. Atlantic South; 73 EVs; Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, Georgia
3. Latino West; 27 EVs; Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon

All in all, the Midwest results only slightly stronger than the Atlantic South, in terms of presidential competitiveness. What we also see is that the enormous press focus on the swingy latino mountain states has been vastly exaggerated, as these states contain only a very few EVs each. This will, of course, change the day both Arizona and Texas will make themselves competitive. The Midwest and the Atlantic South contain as many as 157 EVs up for grabs, while the 3 Western Latino states + Oregon together only contain 27 EVs, not even reaching 20% of the number of the two other regions.

Great analysis!  In a very close election we might even narrow it to OH+PA+IA vs. VA+FL vs. CO+NV in which case the South and Midwest still have about twice as many swing EV as the Rockies to offer.  If a Republican is winning other Midwestern states or a Democrat other Southern states, they are probably gravy.

[hopper]

No Virginia is the hardest to win back because the state grew with the Black Population in the 2010 Census. Yeah the White Poplulation grew but not with the state average.

I think Nevada is gonna be a swing state. Florida is gonna be a challenge for the GOP to win because of the Puerto Ricans moving into the Orlando area.

So VA and FL are my picks.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Definately Ohio, because it follows NM. Since 1960 have the two states voted wrongly, 1960 and 1976 for popular and electoral vote winner. NM is definitely not a GOP state.

[SWE]

Nevada and Virginia

[Cranberry]

Nevada and Virginia, not sure which one is first.
Then Colorado, which has a slight democratic advantage, but is still winnable easily for the right Republican.
Florida will always remain one of the narrowest states (for now)
And Ohio I see trending towards the GOP.

[Starpaul20]

I'm gonna say Nevada, with Virginia second and Colorado third.

Ohio and Florida I expect to remain swing states.

[Skill and Chance]

I want to say Nevada, but what about a concerted GOP effort to appeal to Mexican Americans?  Or a Susana Martinez nomination?  There seems to be one really obvious thing they need to do to win Nevada, which is true for some states but not others:

Nevada: Appeal to Mexican-American Hispanics
Colorado: Appeal to upscale social liberals/environmentalists, Nevada strategy also helps here
Ohio: Working class/private sector union outreach- this would also make PA/MI/WI more interesting

That leaves VA and FL, which have no one obvious strategy.  Do you try to drive up margins in the culturally Southern parts of the state and risk alienating social liberals in the suburbs?  Do you reach out to the suburbs and risk a loss of rural turnout?  These two states are both quite diverse in demographics and lifestyles, so no one particular group is large enough to swing them.  The Colorado strategy would get you back over 40% in Fairfax and Dade, but what would the Clinton-McCain areas think about that?  Florida may be close enough that it doesn't matter, but I'm not sure.     
 

[Non Swing Voter]

Nevada and Colorado will be the hardest to win back next election...

From 2020 on, Virginia will be the hardest to win back, if not impossible.  By then the NOVA population will be too big for Republicans to have a real chance.  Especially with the continued population losses in southwest VA, which show no signs of slowing.