Why Republicans have an Electoral College problem

[Mehmentum]

Here are the PVI (statewide vote compared to national vote) trends from 2000 to 2012. Negative numbers represent Republican trends.  The color shows how states voted in 2000.

West Virginia: -23.82
Arkansas: -21.63
Tennessee: -19.92 (Gore home state)
Oklahoma: -15.04
Louisiana: -12.9
Missouri: -10.95
Kentucky: -10.95
Utah: -10.93 (Romney home state)
Alabama: -10.69
Massachusetts: -7.54 (Romney home state)
Arizona: -6.16
Rhode Island: -5.0
Kansas: -4.3
Wyoming: -4.14
Connecticut: -3.52 (Lieberman home state)
Florida: -2.49
Pennsylvania: -2.17
New Jersey: -1.42
New York: -0.18

The vast majority of Republican trending states since 2000 already voted Republican in 2000.  If you discount MA and CT due to home state bounces, then all you're really left with is Rhode Island (which is too strongly Democratic to be in play in the near future) and Pennsylvania.  As small a trend it is, Pennsylvania is the only Democratic state with really any promise.

Its actually even worse than that.  You'll notice that there are fewer Republican trending states than Democratic trending states.  This is because Republicans have 9 states trending 10 points or more toward them.  Democrats have 4 states trending that strongly to them.  ALL of those nine states were already solidly Republican in 2000, so gaining 10 to 20 points in those states are wasted votes as far as the electoral college is concerned.

Now look at the Democratic trending states:

Georgia: 0.49
Michigan: 0.99
South Dakota: 1.33
Illinois: 1.48 (Obama home state)
Minnesota: 1.91
Mississippi: 2.03
Indiana: 2.05
South Carolina: 2.08
Iowa: 2.12
Deleware: 2.19 (Biden home state)
Ohio: 3.11
Wisconsin: 3.34 (Ryan home state)
New Hampshire: 3.47
Nebraska: 3.84
D.C.: 4.05
Idaho: 4.24
North Dakota: 4.59
Texas: 5.15 (Bush home state)
Washington: 5.91
Maryland: 6.3
New Mexico: 6.71
Maine: 6.8
Nevada: 6.85
North Carolina: 7.41
California: 7.94
Montana: 8.04
Oregon: 8.27
Virginia: 8.54
Colorado: 10.34
Alaska: 13.58
Hawaii: 21.0 (Obama home state)
Vermont: 22.28


Notice the strong trends in Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina, and Nevada.  Not to mention weak trends in Ohio, New Hampshire, and Iowa.  All but one of the 2012 battleground states have had Democratic trends since 2000.  

So basically, Republicans have gained a lot in states they were already strong in.  While Democrats have gained in both lean Republican states and tossup states.  

Very few lean Democratic states are trending R.  Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin are either stationary or have weak Democratic trends (Wisconsin, despite Ryan's presence on the ticket).  The only apparent openings Republicans have are Florida and Pennsylvania, which both have weak trends that may just be noise.

[Beet]

Well at least you can't accuse the Republicans of only supporting the anti-democratic side of every debate about the structural features of our representative system solely out of self-interest. This is one case where one man, one vote would actually help them and they still oppose it. I guess they're more principled than I thought.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

All resulting from census data, in 1990's and 2000's, the electoral votes taken away from industrial midwest and transferred to TX and AZ resulted in G O P victories on the congressional side and presidential levels.


But, on the other hand, with transferred growth of electoral votes to FL, CO, and NV, along with young latinos, it resulted in the opposite understanding and now CO, NV and NH have the same electoral strength as OH and to Dems advantage.

[Famous Mortimer]

Well at least you can't accuse the Republicans of only supporting the anti-democratic side of every debate about the structural features of our representative system solely out of self-interest. This is one case where one man, one vote would actually help them and they still oppose it. I guess they're more principled than I thought.

No. They're just too dumb to understand their own self interest. The EC made Bush win, therefore the EC is good for Repulicans. They can't understand any arguement more nuanced than that.

[DS0816]

I would suggest doing a partisan-voting index of the last six election cycles (1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012), and translate them into raw-vote advantages for either side.

I don't have the time right now; due to plans I have this evening [Wednesday, 12.24.2014]. But, to give you an idea: California and Texas are virtually the opposite. They're roughly 20 percentage points in advantage for their parties. In 2008 and 2012, California cast about 13 million presidential votes. Over those cycles, Texas was about 8 million. This means California is at a Democratic raw-vote advantage of about 2.6 million raw votes while Texas is at a Republican raw-vote advantage of about 1.6 million. You look at the popular-vote of raw-vote margins from 2004 and from 2012, the re-elections of Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Barack Obama, and more than half their national raw-vote margins came from their respective party's most-populous of base states.

By the way: Historically, California has the better record over Texas. Since both states have existed, Texas has carried for about 60 percent of presidential winners. California, on the other hand, rates about 85 percent. That should tell us a lot about "Why Republicans have an Electoral College problem."

[HillaryLandslide2016]

Their problem can be summarized quite easily: The old, racist, redneck base is dying off and minorities and young people are finally taking back this country.

[hopper]

Well at least you can't accuse the Republicans of only supporting the anti-democratic side of every debate about the structural features of our representative system solely out of self-interest. This is one case where one man, one vote would actually help them and they still oppose it. I guess they're more principled than I thought.

No. They're just too dumb to understand their own self interest. The EC made Bush win, therefore the EC is good for Repulicans. They can't understand any arguement more nuanced than that.

Romney could have lost the popular vote by a couple points and he still would have the lost EC probably.

[hopper]

Well the Dem trend in CO, NC, and VA are what's killing Republicans and of course you have to win Ohio. The last President to win the election without Ohio was JFK in 1960. I don't think NV is off the board for the Republicans. I read on Latino Decisions the more NV Latino's educated in terms of schooling and income(the more money they make) the more R they vote.

Florida trending Republican is shocking.

Of the Republican trending states that are now in the Dem Column only PA is within near  reach.

Ohio, Wisconsin, Idaho, New Hampshire, DC, and Nebraska all moved with the national average from 2000-2012. The electorate swung 3-4 points Dem from 2000-2012.

[Mehmentum]

Well the Dem trend in CO, NC, and VA are what's killing Republicans and of course you have to win Ohio. The last President to win the election without Ohio was JFK in 1960. I don't think NV is off the board for the Republicans. I read on Latino Decisions the more NV Latino's educated in terms of schooling and income(the more money they make) the more R they vote.

Florida trending Republican is shocking.

Of the Republican trending states that are now in the Dem Column only PA is within near  reach.

Ohio, Wisconsin, Idaho, New Hampshire, DC, and Nebraska all moved with the national average from 2000-2012. The electorate swung 3-4 points Dem from 2000-2012.

These shifts are adjusted for the swing in the national PV. 

Two other interesting states are Arizona and Georgia.  Despite a lot of talk that these states are trending Democratic, Arizona actually has a strong Republican trend since 2000, while Georgia is pretty much stationary.

[DS0816]

Well the Dem trend in CO, NC, and VA are what's killing Republicans and of course you have to win Ohio. The last President to win the election without Ohio was JFK in 1960. I don't think NV is off the board for the Republicans. I read on Latino Decisions the more NV Latino's educated in terms of schooling and income(the more money they make) the more R they vote.

Florida trending Republican is shocking.

Of the Republican trending states that are now in the Dem Column only PA is within near  reach.

Ohio, Wisconsin, Idaho, New Hampshire, DC, and Nebraska all moved with the national average from 2000-2012. The electorate swung 3-4 points Dem from 2000-2012.

I don't think Florida is trending Republican. If one wants to compare state vs. national margins, go ahead. Since 1996, the state has been within five percentage points from the national number. And since 1928, the state has carried for every winner except in the Democratic pickup elections of 1960 and 1992. It was within five percentage points from the national in 1960. It was about 7-or-so more Republican in part because George Bush had an inflated margin with carriage of the state in 1988 and, with being unseated in 1992, he managed to hold by nearly two points in Florida while he lost the U.S. Popular Vote by more than five.

In 2000, Florida was just even with the U.S. Popular Vote. In 2004, it was about 2.50 percentage points more Republican. In 2008, it was about 4.50 points more Republican. In 2012, it was about 3 percentage points more Republican. It's not locked in to being routinely a special number. But it shades at least a couple points more Republican while performing within five percentage points from the national result. This keeps Florida, with having carried in 20 of the last 22 presidential elections, in the bellwether category.

[Oregreen]

Well the Dem trend in CO, NC, and VA are what's killing Republicans and of course you have to win Ohio. The last President to win the election without Ohio was JFK in 1960. I don't think NV is off the board for the Republicans. I read on Latino Decisions the more NV Latino's educated in terms of schooling and income(the more money they make) the more R they vote.

Florida trending Republican is shocking.

Of the Republican trending states that are now in the Dem Column only PA is within near  reach.

Ohio, Wisconsin, Idaho, New Hampshire, DC, and Nebraska all moved with the national average from 2000-2012. The electorate swung 3-4 points Dem from 2000-2012.

I don't think Florida is trending Republican. If one wants to compare state vs. national margins, go ahead. Since 1996, the state has been within five percentage points from the national number. And since 1928, the state has carried for every winner except in the Democratic pickup elections of 1960 and 1992. It was within five percentage points from the national in 1960. It was about 7-or-so more Republican in part because George Bush had an inflated margin with carriage of the state in 1988 and, with being unseated in 1992, he managed to hold by nearly two points in Florida while he lost the U.S. Popular Vote by more than five.

In 2000, Florida was just even with the U.S. Popular Vote. In 2004, it was about 2.50 percentage points more Republican. In 2008, it was about 4.50 points more Republican. In 2012, it was about 3 percentage points more Republican. It's not locked in to being routinely a special number. But it shades at least a couple points more Republican while performing within five percentage points from the national result. This keeps Florida, with having carried in 20 of the last 22 presidential elections, in the bellwether category.

I think that if Hillary is the nominee, the Republicans will have to fight even harder for Florida because she will appeal to more white, old folks there.

[HillaryLandslide2016]

Well the Dem trend in CO, NC, and VA are what's killing Republicans and of course you have to win Ohio. The last President to win the election without Ohio was JFK in 1960. I don't think NV is off the board for the Republicans. I read on Latino Decisions the more NV Latino's educated in terms of schooling and income(the more money they make) the more R they vote.

Florida trending Republican is shocking.

Of the Republican trending states that are now in the Dem Column only PA is within near  reach.

Ohio, Wisconsin, Idaho, New Hampshire, DC, and Nebraska all moved with the national average from 2000-2012. The electorate swung 3-4 points Dem from 2000-2012.

I don't think Florida is trending Republican. If one wants to compare state vs. national margins, go ahead. Since 1996, the state has been within five percentage points from the national number. And since 1928, the state has carried for every winner except in the Democratic pickup elections of 1960 and 1992. It was within five percentage points from the national in 1960. It was about 7-or-so more Republican in part because George Bush had an inflated margin with carriage of the state in 1988 and, with being unseated in 1992, he managed to hold by nearly two points in Florida while he lost the U.S. Popular Vote by more than five.

In 2000, Florida was just even with the U.S. Popular Vote. In 2004, it was about 2.50 percentage points more Republican. In 2008, it was about 4.50 points more Republican. In 2012, it was about 3 percentage points more Republican. It's not locked in to being routinely a special number. But it shades at least a couple points more Republican while performing within five percentage points from the national result. This keeps Florida, with having carried in 20 of the last 22 presidential elections, in the bellwether category.

I think that if Hillary is the nominee, the Republicans will have to fight even harder for Florida because she will appeal to more white, old folks there.

Exatly. I don't get why they would even try to win Florida. They should instead try to avoid a landslide loss like in 1936.

[IceSpear]

Well the Dem trend in CO, NC, and VA are what's killing Republicans and of course you have to win Ohio. The last President to win the election without Ohio was JFK in 1960. I don't think NV is off the board for the Republicans. I read on Latino Decisions the more NV Latino's educated in terms of schooling and income(the more money they make) the more R they vote.

Florida trending Republican is shocking.

Of the Republican trending states that are now in the Dem Column only PA is within near  reach.

Ohio, Wisconsin, Idaho, New Hampshire, DC, and Nebraska all moved with the national average from 2000-2012. The electorate swung 3-4 points Dem from 2000-2012.

I don't think Florida is trending Republican. If one wants to compare state vs. national margins, go ahead. Since 1996, the state has been within five percentage points from the national number. And since 1928, the state has carried for every winner except in the Democratic pickup elections of 1960 and 1992. It was within five percentage points from the national in 1960. It was about 7-or-so more Republican in part because George Bush had an inflated margin with carriage of the state in 1988 and, with being unseated in 1992, he managed to hold by nearly two points in Florida while he lost the U.S. Popular Vote by more than five.

In 2000, Florida was just even with the U.S. Popular Vote. In 2004, it was about 2.50 percentage points more Republican. In 2008, it was about 4.50 points more Republican. In 2012, it was about 3 percentage points more Republican. It's not locked in to being routinely a special number. But it shades at least a couple points more Republican while performing within five percentage points from the national result. This keeps Florida, with having carried in 20 of the last 22 presidential elections, in the bellwether category.

I think that if Hillary is the nominee, the Republicans will have to fight even harder for Florida because she will appeal to more white, old folks there.

Exatly. I don't get why they would even try to win Florida. They should instead try to avoid a landslide loss like in 1936.

Because if they conceded Florida, they'd essentially concede the election.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Three reasons:

1. California
2. New York
3. Illinois

All of these states have trended Dem in the past 20 years because of social issues.

[hopper]

Well the Dem trend in CO, NC, and VA are what's killing Republicans and of course you have to win Ohio. The last President to win the election without Ohio was JFK in 1960. I don't think NV is off the board for the Republicans. I read on Latino Decisions the more NV Latino's educated in terms of schooling and income(the more money they make) the more R they vote.

Florida trending Republican is shocking.

Of the Republican trending states that are now in the Dem Column only PA is within near  reach.

Ohio, Wisconsin, Idaho, New Hampshire, DC, and Nebraska all moved with the national average from 2000-2012. The electorate swung 3-4 points Dem from 2000-2012.

I don't think Florida is trending Republican. If one wants to compare state vs. national margins, go ahead. Since 1996, the state has been within five percentage points from the national number. And since 1928, the state has carried for every winner except in the Democratic pickup elections of 1960 and 1992. It was within five percentage points from the national in 1960. It was about 7-or-so more Republican in part because George Bush had an inflated margin with carriage of the state in 1988 and, with being unseated in 1992, he managed to hold by nearly two points in Florida while he lost the U.S. Popular Vote by more than five.

In 2000, Florida was just even with the U.S. Popular Vote. In 2004, it was about 2.50 percentage points more Republican. In 2008, it was about 4.50 points more Republican. In 2012, it was about 3 percentage points more Republican. It's not locked in to being routinely a special number. But it shades at least a couple points more Republican while performing within five percentage points from the national result. This keeps Florida, with having carried in 20 of the last 22 presidential elections, in the bellwether category.

I think that if Hillary is the nominee, the Republicans will have to fight even harder for Florida because she will appeal to more white, old folks there.

Exatly. I don't get why they would even try to win Florida. They should instead try to avoid a landslide loss like in 1936.

They aren't going to lose Alf Landon style.

[hopper]

Three reasons:

1. California
2. New York
3. Illinois

All of these states have trended Dem in the past 20 years because of social issues.

Illinois-Its a Dem state because of Cook County. Without Cook County Romney would have won the state 50-47%.

New York-The GOP loses there because the state is New York City centric. That's where most of the population is in the state. The GOP is mostly competitive in the rest of the state outside of most of the city. Staten Island, Southern Brooklyn, and some of Queens the GOP is still competitive in the city. Manhattan and The Bronx is where they lose big.

California-1.) Yes the GOP not being competitive there has to do with the party becoming increasingly conservative but California has shifted to the left also since the mid 1990's.2.) I do think Prop 187 had a lot to do with the GOP losing support with Hispanics in the state. I do think the damage from Prop 187 will last the party another 10 years. 3.) The state party is starting to rebuild. You have no where else to go but up because most of last session the CA Dems had supermajorities in both state chambers until a Dem State Senate official ran into corruption problems. I do think its a combination of things as you can see I listed as to why the GOP completely lost footing in CA despite controlling the Governorship from 2004-2010.

[HillaryLandslide2016]

Three reasons:

1. California
2. New York
3. Illinois

All of these states have trended Dem in the past 20 years because of social issues.

Illinois-Its a Dem state because of Cook County. Without Cook County Romney would have won the state 50-47%.

New York-The GOP loses there because the state is New York City centric. That's where most of the population is in the state. The GOP is mostly competitive in the rest of the state outside of most of the city. Staten Island, Southern Brooklyn, and some of Queens the GOP is still competitive in the city. Manhattan and The Bronx is where they lose big.

California-1.) Yes the GOP not being competitive there has to do with the party becoming increasingly conservative but California has shifted to the left also since the mid 1990's.2.) I do think Prop 187 had a lot to do with the GOP losing support with Hispanics in the state. I do think the damage from Prop 187 will last the party another 10 years. 3.) The state party is starting to rebuild. You have no where else to go but up because most of last session the CA Dems had supermajorities in both state chambers until a Dem State Senate official ran into corruption problems. I do think its a combination of things as you can see I listed as to why the GOP completely lost footing in CA despite controlling the Governorship from 2004-2010.

That may be true, but it doesn't change their Electoral College problem.

[Oregreen]

INEVITABLE?

DOMINATING?

LOL

[Oregreen]

INEVITABLE?

DOMINATING?

LOL

Aw, that's the best ya got?

I 'm disappointed.

I am so sorry, Madam President.

[DS0816]

Three reasons:

1. California
2. New York
3. Illinois

All of these states have trended Dem in the past 20 years because of social issues.

Yes.

And all three states have been historically carried in more than 80 percent of the United States presidential elections while the likes of Texas, Georgia, and South Carolina most certainly have not.

[Lincoln Republican]

INEVITABLE?

DOMINATING?

LOL

Aw, that's the best ya got?

I 'm disappointed.

He was agreeing with you... he was laughing at your meme

Oh, in that case I owe Oregreen a big apology.  Sorry Oregreen.

[IceSpear]

You know Republicans are in bad shape when they have to resort to 1944 comparisons, back when the pollsters only contacted old rich whites.

[Oregreen]

INEVITABLE?

DOMINATING?

LOL

Aw, that's the best ya got?

I 'm disappointed.

He was agreeing with you... he was laughing at your meme

Oh, in that case I owe Oregreen a big apology.  Sorry Oregreen.

No problem.  How can I be angry with a Rhode Island Republican?

[Lincoln Republican]

You know Republicans are in bad shape when they have to resort to 1944 comparisons, back when the pollsters only contacted old rich whites.

If you're referring to my signature, it's 1948. 

[IceSpear]

You know Republicans are in bad shape when they have to resort to 1944 comparisons, back when the pollsters only contacted old rich whites.

Um... what? You realize they had a quota and had to talk to blacks, women, and different income brackets, right?

Do you know ANYTHING about public opinion polls?

You seem to have missed the point. I was obviously referring to the infamous Literary Digest "Alf Landon will win in a landslide" poll. The point is, polling was awful back then.