Can states that haven't gone Republican since 1988 be considered "swing states"?

[IceSpear]

In my opinion, no. Calling them swing states is an oxymoron. In order for a state to be considered one, it actually has to swing.

[Tieteobserver]

Up to 1988, CA was solidly Republican. By changing the criteria, we would be calling it a "swing state", when in fact its reliably blue.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Not really, which is why "battleground states" is a more appropriate term.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

Technically the term "swing state" should refer to any state that swings, i.e. every single state, so it doesn't really make sense at all. Either way, it wouldn't make sense, even for states like Wisconsin or Pennsylvania.

[ElectionsGuy]

So none of these are swing states? I think Wisconsin and Pennsylvania could be in a good republican scenario.

[IceSpear]

So none of these are swing states? I think Wisconsin and Pennsylvania could be in a good republican scenario.

I wouldn't put them in the same group as VA/OH/FL/CO, no. They're pretty clearly lean D states. If the Republican is winning them, they've already won the election and those are just icing on the cake.

[MATTROSE94]

Not really. I would consider Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota lean Democratic states and Washington, Oregon and Maine likely Democratic states. California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Illinois, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland and Vermont are pretty much safe Democratic states that will require a lot to flip Republican.

[Devils30]

They can be swing states if they are right around the national popular vote. I would say PA has a chance to become a genuine swing state but ones like MI, MN still lean D for now.

[sg0508]

Yes, depending on how the demographic shifts within the states link to the current political environment.  WI is still winnable for the GOP, as is NH and PA.  The west coast? Forget about it, although Bush was very close there (due to Nader) in 2000 and was competitive there and in WA State in both of his races.

[TDAS04]

Yes, if they have a good chance at being the tipping point state in the electoral college.  I believe Pennsylvania came extremely close (barely losing out to Colorado) to being the tipping point state in 2012, so...

[Skill and Chance]

Yes.  Part of this is that Republicans haven't had a big win since 1988.  That isn't to say that some of these states (CA, IL, NY etc.) haven't realigned away to be unwinnable, but if/when reverse 2008 happens IL could be the only Dem win in the Midwest. 

[Never]

Maybe not. Perhaps a quailfying statement like "potential swing state" would better reflect states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that are viewed as being competitive, despite not voting for a Republican since '88. If a Republican breaks 300 EVs, it would be necessary for him or her to win at least one state that hasn't voted Republican since 1988, but winning any of those states might be difficult, which is why they are generally considered to be part of the non-Atlas-Blue Firewall.

Futhermore, some states that haven't went Democratic since 1992 like Georgia aren't considered competitive (it seems like Georgia is the best Republican analogue of Pennsylvania), so I could see why someone wouldn't label states that haven't switched parties since 1988/1992 as swing states.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Yes, if they've been significantly close since then.

[Mister Mets]

It's rare but not unprecedented for a state that hasn't gone to a political party in a long time to be close to the tipping point in a national election. See Virginia in 2008.

Currently, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are close to the tipping point. From 2004, Pennsylvania has gotten closer to the national margin. Bush lost Wisconsin by less than half a point in two close elections, and it was three points off in 2012.

Minnesota's also a possibility, since it's been 3-4 points off the popular vote, and Republicans are considering more emphasis on the Midwest. But it's unlikely to determine the election.

Maybe not. Perhaps a quailfying statement like "potential swing state" would better reflect states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that are viewed as being competitive, despite not voting for a Republican since '88. If a Republican breaks 300 EVs, it would be necessary for him or her to win at least one state that hasn't voted Republican since 1988, but winning any of those states might be difficult, which is why they are generally considered to be part of the non-Atlas-Blue Firewall.

Futhermore, some states that haven't went Democratic since 1992 like Georgia aren't considered competitive (it seems like Georgia is the best Republican analogue of Pennsylvania), so I could see why someone wouldn't label states that haven't switched parties since 1988/1992 as swing states.

Sampling bias also comes into it. We chose a six election period in which four elections went pretty well for Democrats in ways that don't necessarily reflect that the Republican party is doomed. So if they didn't win Georgia in recent elections, it's unlikely to go to the party absent a landslide we haven't seen in a while.

[Orser67]

To me, there are four potential definitions:

1: A swing state is a state that swings back and forth between elections.
2: A swing state is any state that's within a couple points of the national popular vote.
3: A swing state is any state that one side could plausibly win.

Personally I like to refer to option 2 as a swing state, and option 3 as a battleground state. Option 1 might semantically be the most correct, but I don't think it's particularly useful.

[Kevin]

Yes they are swing states.

If the GOP takes back the White House in 2016 or whenever, the Republican candidate will probably win at least one 1988 state like PA, MI, or  failing that WI.  In addition to the combination of Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Colorado among others that they need to achieve victory.

[Nichlemn]

Yes.  Part of this is that Republicans haven't had a big win since 1988.  That isn't to say that some of these states (CA, IL, NY etc.) haven't realigned away to be unwinnable, but if/when reverse 2008 happens IL could be the only Dem win in the Midwest. 

[DS0816]

"Swing state" is overly used.

Most of us, here, looking at the term are actually thinking about presidential bellwether states. The ones established over a long term. Ones that are diminishing. Ones that have become newly established. And ones that may emerge.

One poster stated that California was a deeply Republican.

Well, California tilted Republican when the Republican party's base states were not, as they are today, in the Old Confederacy.

During the 25 election cycles of the 1900s, the state of California carried for all presidential winners with exceptions of 1912, 1960, and 1976. Those first two cycles were one in which California carried for a losing ticket in which a Californian was either the presidential or vice-presidential candidate.

[IceSpear]

Yes.  Part of this is that Republicans haven't had a big win since 1988.  That isn't to say that some of these states (CA, IL, NY etc.) haven't realigned away to be unwinnable, but if/when reverse 2008 happens IL could be the only Dem win in the Midwest. 

But that's the question: is the fact that the Republicans haven't gotten a big win in nearly 3 decades solely due to random chance, or is it because structurally they no longer CAN get a big win? By contrast, Democrats have gotten 3 big wins (92, 96, 08).

[Non Swing Voter]

Yes.  Part of this is that Republicans haven't had a big win since 1988.  That isn't to say that some of these states (CA, IL, NY etc.) haven't realigned away to be unwinnable, but if/when reverse 2008 happens IL could be the only Dem win in the Midwest. 

But that's the question: is the fact that the Republicans haven't gotten a big win in nearly 3 decades solely due to random chance, or is it because structurally they no longer CAN get a big win? By contrast, Democrats have gotten 3 big wins (92, 96, 08).

Exactly.

This board needs to stop looking at things like tipping point states or what state is closest to the national average to decide if it's a swing state, etc.

The fact is that the country itself leans democrat.  It's going to be an uphill climb for Republicans to win the popular vote over the next few elections.  It isn't rocket science, Democrats win more population centers like New York, California, Illinois than Republicans, who win Texas.  Most of the other population centers swing (i.e., Florida).  Democrats have an inherent advantage in the popular vote and this translates into an inherent advantage in the electoral college because they start off with more safe electoral college votes.

[Mister Mets]

Yes.  Part of this is that Republicans haven't had a big win since 1988.  That isn't to say that some of these states (CA, IL, NY etc.) haven't realigned away to be unwinnable, but if/when reverse 2008 happens IL could be the only Dem win in the Midwest. 

But that's the question: is the fact that the Republicans haven't gotten a big win in nearly 3 decades solely due to random chance, or is it because structurally they no longer CAN get a big win? By contrast, Democrats have gotten 3 big wins (92, 96, 08).

I think it'll take a while to determine what kind of political era this is.

In two of those big Democratic wins, the candidate didn't get a majority of the vote, due to the presence of a third party candidate who ran on balancing the budget. The 2008 election came shortly after an economic disaster had an approval rating below thirty percent.

If we're at a time when voters prefer to kick a party out of the White House after two terms, it would be completely normal for Republicans to only win in 2000 and 2004.

But there are plenty of unknowns. Maybe George W Bush was a particularly weak candidate, who still managed narrow wins. Maybe he was a strong candidate with unique appeal to Hispanic voters and suburban white voters, in which case his narrow wins represent the ceiling of the Republican party. There are similar questions about Obama and the losing candidates.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

Maybe George W Bush was a particularly weak candidate, who still managed narrow wins. Maybe he was a strong candidate with unique appeal to Hispanic voters and suburban white voters, in which case his narrow wins represent the ceiling of the Republican party.

Bush was an uneven candidate who happened to emerge at a time when the map was in transition. He played very, very well in areas the Democrats had relied upon in close races (Appalachia and the border states) and well enough where favorable trends for the Democrats had yet to take hold.

His Hispanic appeal has always been exaggerated, even at the time. I remember polls/commentary during the 2000 race that suggested he might actually win the Hispanic vote; that didn't come close to happening. He did better - as an incumbent - in 2004 but most analysts think the exit polls overstated it to a significant degree.

I think of Bush's two wins as very much like Carter's post-Watergate win in '76: very close and aided by fluke-like circumstances (butterfly ballot, Nader, Supreme Court, 9/11). Probably the next GOP president will have his own coalition, just as Clinton's victories were only distantly related to Carter's New Dealish win, despite both being Southerners.

[The Mikado]

Wisconsin can be a swing state (though it isn't always one...see 2008)...the Republicans came extremely close to winning it in 2004.  Pennsylvania and Michigan and Minnesota could go GOP in a solid GOP win.

[Person Man]

What do you expect the next Republican's winning coalition to be? It could be like Carter-Clinton, where Clinton solidified the NE and west coast while winning some of the South. I'm guessing this would be like a Republican winning Virginia, Florida and Colorado by smaller than national margins and then doing really well in Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Pennsylvania and maybe Michigan..maybe almost winning Minnesota and Illinois. Maybe he will have trouble in Arizona and Georgia but still be OK there.




Or maybe it will be a Clinton-Obama situation where the Republican abandons the last loose parts of the Republican coalition and really reaches out and builds a strong "rural culture" coalition.

Just a slightly more evolved 2004 map-

a little bit more evolved-

much more evolved-

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Can states that haven't gone Democratic since 1964 be considered "swing states"?

In my opinion, no. Calling them swing states is an oxymoron. In order for a state to be considered one, it actually has to swing.