Florida and Ohio

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

What are the odds that a Democrat (presumably Warren) wins the election while losing Ohio and Florida?
I still consider the latter a swing state, which however is a too perfect fit for Trump, whereas Ohio is becoming the new Alabama, which is gone for the Democrats for the next decades.
Which states would become the new bellwether? New Mexico and Nevada?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

MI, WI,Pa and VA and FL

[AN63093]

While losing OH?  Not only possible, but actually I suspect OH is going to be increasingly irrelevant to the Dems' path to the White House (obviously it will still be winnable in the next few cycles and the Dems would love to have it if they can).

While losing FL?  Probably not possible.  If the Dems are losing FL, they're almost certainly behind a few other states as well that they need to win.

Finally, OH becoming the new AL?  Eh???

I discuss this extensively in the "OH the new MO?" thread... long story short, OH is not going to become a "safe R" state, at least in the short term, and even if it does, OH has practically nothing in common with AL, either historically or in contemporary growth patterns.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

FL is becoming the new NC while OH is more like MO, which will be like 1960 and lose its bellweather status. But, with Trump, OH still will be in play

[AN63093]

As to your second question, I don't think NM or NV will ever be bellwethers.

FL will be a bellwether, in both the short and long term, I believe.

Long long term, (not this decade or maybe even the next, but eventually), I think TX could become a bellwether.  

[BuckeyeNut]

FL is becoming the new NC while OH is more like MO, which will be like 1960 and lose its bellweather status. But, with Trump, OH still will be in play

Uh, no?

Ohio more Republican now than ever because of Trump. Replace him with more conventional Republicans like Romney at the Presidential level, and it's back to being the same-old swing state.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

This is my prediction for now. (Right now it seems reasonable to assume that Warren will choose Bullock as her running mate, hence Montana being blue.)

[AN63093]

FL is becoming the new NC while OH is more like MO, which will be like 1960 and lose its bellweather status. But, with Trump, OH still will be in play

I don't understand what you mean by "FL is becoming the new NC."

FL is a mix of Old South, middle class people from all over in central FL, Latin America, retirees, and old Jews from NY.

NC is a turnout battle between blacks, millennial whites and liberals that have moved into the Raleigh-Durham and Charlotte MSAs, vs. older whites and conservatives that have moved in.

Both states are winnable by both parties, though FL has been for a little while longer and NC is more R leaning.

I'm not seeing the similarity.

Now if you reversed your statement and said "NC is becoming the new FL," that actually makes a little more sense to me, though FL is going to be significantly more Hispanic I think.

[Xing]

If Ohio does lose its bellwether status, Florida would become the "ultimate" bellwether, last siding with the loser in 1992. If a Democrat wins without Ohio or Florida, then it would be a three-way tie between Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, assuming Iowa also goes Republican. Long term, Florida seems to be the likeliest candidate for a bellwether state, but maybe one or more of the Kerry/Trump states could become bellwethers, if they don't trend further to the right.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

As to your second question, I don't think NM or NV will ever be bellwethers.

FL will be a bellwether, in both the short and long term, I believe.

Long long term, (not this decade or maybe even the next, but eventually), I think TX could become a bellwether.  

New Mexico is already a bellwether, at least in terms of the popular vote; it has only voted once for the PV loser since it gained statehood. And if Florida votes for Trump again, even though Warren wins the presidency, it's hard to tell if it can still be called a bellwether.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Democrats can carve a path to victory without Florida, but they should still contest it heavily. Not necessarily because they need to win it but to simply block the Republican from 270 if that makes sense. They don't need it as much as the Republicans do but they still shouldn't let them have it with so much potential for votes there. FL will be the bellwether while Ohio becomes Lean GOP.

Ohio is irrelevant with Virginia and Colorado shifting to the Democrats long term.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Not very likely. But the Democrats can win without it, probably will be difficult though. The path would be MI + WI + PA + VA.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

This would be the most minimalist pattern for the Democrats to win without FL nor OH:

[Xing]

This would be the most minimalist pattern for the Democrats to win without FL nor OH:

I think Democrats are much more likely to win Wisconsin than ME-02, at this point.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

In the "minimalist" map I posted the best bellwether states would be Michigan and Pennsylvania, since they would have voted for the overall winner since 2008.

[Devils30]

Neither side is winning without Florida in 2020.

[Burke Bro]

It's possible for the Democratic candidate to win without Florida, although the odds are minuscule. I think the most likely path would be to flip back MI, PA and WI. There's no way swing states with a red tint (NC, AZ and NE-2) flip without FL flipping too.

[Rjjr77]

One thing you have to remember about Ohio. It will always be a bellwether, just perhaps a different kind. If the GOP is winning places like Ohio by 5-10 points, MI, PA, MN, WI are in play. 0-5 they probably arent.

[ethanforamerica]

Eh. Ohio was won by trump for the same reason Pennsylvania and Michigan were. However, it's an uphill battle for Dems statewide since Portman won Cincinnati

[mcmikk]

This is my prediction for now. (Right now it seems reasonable to assume that Warren will choose Bullock as her running mate, hence Montana being blue.)

I don't think Bullock as a VP pick would automatically win Democrats Montana.

That aside, I can't see a Democratic ticket carrying Alaska and Arizona but losing Florida.

[Mr. Smith]

This is my prediction for now. (Right now it seems reasonable to assume that Warren will choose Bullock as her running mate, hence Montana being blue.)

I don't think Bullock as a VP pick would automatically win Democrats Montana.

That aside, I can't see a Democratic ticket carrying Alaska and Arizona but losing Florida.

To be fair, a Republican actually flipping Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and doing better in Arizona than North Carolina or Ohio wasn't considered possible either.

[PragmaticPopulist]

Ohio's not becoming a new Alabama. Voting is still much less polarized along racial lines in Ohio than Alabama. And I'm skeptical that Ohio will lose its bellwether status in the short term. I can definitely see Democrats winning without it at this point though, since Florida and North Carolina now have a lot of ECs. My guess is that in 2020, Trump wins Ohio by a significantly reduced margin if he doesn't lose it.