NBC's Final Battleground Maps : 1992-2020

[OSR stands with Israel]

1992:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYHVpEnJeEs&t=1564s




1996: Can't Find


2000:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXhGjmFhHbI



2004:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzjQdmC-6W0&t=551s





2008:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKPZ8ucmGBo&t=964s




2012:

https://youtu.be/bdgg1rZTPQ0



2016:

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-election-day/nbc-s-final-battleground-map-shows-clinton-edge-n678926




2020:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg4ldloe8EU

[Crumpets]

I remember sitting in my high school library in 2008 watching Chuck Todd's reveal of the new NBC battleground map the first time they flipped enough states for Obama to hit 270 without any swing state wins. It was probably the first time I thought Obama was a clear favorite, since I had been really bearish on him as a candidate after supporting Hillary in the primary.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I remember sitting in my high school library in 2008 watching Chuck Todd's reveal of the new NBC battleground map the first time they flipped enough states for Obama to hit 270 without any swing state wins. It was probably the first time I thought Obama was a clear favorite, since I had been really bearish on him as a candidate after supporting Hillary in the primary.

Something interesting about Obama's bids in contrast to Clinton is while Obama in both 2008 and 2012 did have moments where he declined(in 2008 between the RNC and Lehman Brothers Collapse and in 2012 between the first and third debate) , by the end he clearly had the momentum .


Clinton the other hand if you look at the NBC October 1992 reports, states like Texas and Florida are considered Tossups in October while by the end they are considered lean Bush and Clinton 44-28 lead becomes like 41-35 . It seems like every time the Dems have taken back the WH in modern times: 1976, 1992, 2020(arguably even 1960) , the Republicans surge in the end of the campaign but the one exception to that was 2008 .

[DS0816]

2008 Democratic presidential pickup winner Barack Obama had the easiest path to the presidency of the United States since 1980 Republican presidential pickup winner Ronald Reagan.

Reagan began with the mathematical 241 electoral votes carried by unseated 1976 Republican incumbent U.S. president Gerald Ford.

241 is 89.25 percent of the 270 electoral votes required for election or re-election.

Obama began with the mathematical 252 electoral votes carried by losing 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry.

252 is 93.33 percent of the 270 electoral votes required for election or re-election to the presidency of the United States.

It is not surprising, given this topic’s specific time period, that the battleground electoral map for 2008 already showed 270 electoral votes being reached.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Added 2012-2020

[Figueira]

Some of the later ones were way overconfident, even though 2016 is the only time any of them were actually wrong (states colored as one party that ended up voting for the other party).

[Person Man]

2012 was blowout, 2016 was even worse, and the results in 2020 were slightly skewed to the right, but not much.   

[President Johnson]

Interesting how Ohio wasn't seen as battleground in 2000? I mean, Clinton won it in 1996. Was Dubya seen as such a good fit for the state?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Interesting how Ohio wasn't seen as battleground in 2000? I mean, Clinton won it in 1996. Was Dubya seen as such a good fit for the state?

I think the reason for that is that Gore triaged the state a few weeks before the election :

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/29/us/the-2000-campaign-the-voters-ohio-a-lock-yet-bush-tests-the-door.html

Ohio is no longer on most lists of the primary battlegrounds, where its place has been taken by Missouri and Florida. But the presidential nominees appear unable to decide whether to give it a pass or not; with bankrolls and campaigning days rapidly dwindling, hard strategic decisions are getting harder, and confusion is rampant.

Last week, Vice President Al Gore's campaign acted as if it was conceding this state's 21 electoral votes to Gov. George W. Bush of Texas. The campaign's own spending on television commercials here was cut from $500,000 to $400,000, and for the second week in a row, the Democratic National Committee spent nothing. Mr. Gore, who has not been in Ohio since Oct. 4, resisted pressure from his backers to return.

Mr. Gore has never moved close to the lead in the public polls here, which makes the rapid fluctuations in strategy more difficult to fathom.

Although Bill Clinton carried Ohio twice, the state has tended toward the Republicans in recent years, at least partly because of major migrations from cities to the suburbs in a half-dozen major metropolitan areas here. Both senators are Republicans, as are all statewide officeholders and the majorities in both houses of the Legislature. That makes Mr. Gore's task harder.

[TDAS04]

I remember 2000.  Oregon and Washington as battlegrounds, lol.  Interesting how much the entire West Coast has trended left.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I remember 2000.  Oregon and Washington as battlegrounds, lol.  Interesting how much the entire West Coast has trended left.

Though given the final results WA should have been considered Lean D , and MN a tossup

[Progressive Pessimist]

These maps really exemplify how polarized the country has become in 30 years.

[Sestak]

Looking how close they were to being "fully wrong" on any state each year:

1992: 1.9 points, Florida (for Bush)

2000: 2.4 points, Minnesota (for Gore)

2004: 3.4 points, Michigan (for Kerry)

2008: 5.2 points, Georgia (for McCain)

2012: 2.0 points, North Carolina (for Romney)

2016: -0.8 points, Wisconsin (projected for Clinton, won by Trump)

2020: 2.4 points, Nevada (for Biden)


The pattern of media approach to these races in general is fairly obvious here; continuously decreasing the uncertainty while their projections became more and more solid over time until their overconfidence led to the near-miss in 2012 where Obama swept the competitive races and then the complete miss in 2016. Amusingly, despite the widest undecided range yet the 2020 range wasn't any more secure than any of the 2000s picks.

Not sure if anything can be gleaned from the actual states here; the 2004 Michigan and 2008 Georgia are interesting when noting each state's role as the major surprise a dozen years later, but this doesn't really fit the rest of them; Minnesota at least has been fool's gold for the GOP for years and some of the others make this narrative questionable as well.

2020 is also the first time here where the state where they were closest to being wrong/the most wrong was a state they called for the eventual winner.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I’ll do the flip side of Sestak and do the states they had a battleground but were won by more than 5 points so arguably should have been called a lean state .

1992:

Iowa: Clinton by 6.02
Connecticut: Clinton by 6.43
Michigan : Clinton by 7.39
Delaware : Clinton by 8.19
Maine : Clinton by 8.33
New Mexico: Clinton by 8.56


2000:

Maine : Gore by 5.11 points
Washington: Gore by 5.58 Points

Arkansas : Bush by 5.44 Points
West Virginia: Bush by 6.32 Points


2004:

Florida : Bush by 5.01 Points

2008:

North Dakota : McCain by 8.63 Points

Nevada: Obama by 12.5 points !
 
2012:

Colorado : Obama by 5.4 Points
New Hampshire: Obama by 5.6 Points
Iowa: Obama by 5.8 Points
Wisconsin: Obama by 6.9 Points


2016:

Georgia : Trump by 5.16 Points
Ohio : Trump by 8.13 Points


2020:

Texas : Trump by 5.58 Points
Ohio : Trump by 8.03 Points
Iowa : Trump by 8.2 Points

[Schiff for Senate]

One thing that stands out to me is that FL was considered Safe R rather than a battleground in 1992. Why was this? Especially considering Clinton did flip the state four years later.

[Sir Mohamed]

Wait, NV was not seen as battleground in 2020? Not sure about that. It was Lean D, no question, though the final result for sure proves that it was indeed a battleground state. Only 2008 is kind of an exception.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Wait, NV was not seen as battleground in 2020? Not sure about that. It was Lean D, no question, though the final result for sure proves that it was indeed a battleground state. Only 2008 is kind of an exception.

I’m only counting the ones seen as tossups or were not marked blue or red on NBC’s final maps

[Property Representative of the Harold Holt Swimming Centre]

Ironically, Clinton swept most of the toss up states in 1992 but Bush swept most of the final toss up states on election night itself (Clinton was ahead by about 350-80 but won by 'only' 370-168).

[TransfemmeGoreVidal]

I remember sitting in my high school library in 2008 watching Chuck Todd's reveal of the new NBC battleground map the first time they flipped enough states for Obama to hit 270 without any swing state wins. It was probably the first time I thought Obama was a clear favorite, since I had been really bearish on him as a candidate after supporting Hillary in the primary.

Something interesting about Obama's bids in contrast to Clinton is while Obama in both 2008 and 2012 did have moments where he declined(in 2008 between the RNC and Lehman Brothers Collapse and in 2012 between the first and third debate) , by the end he clearly had the momentum .


Clinton the other hand if you look at the NBC October 1992 reports, states like Texas and Florida are considered Tossups in October while by the end they are considered lean Bush and Clinton 44-28 lead becomes like 41-35 . It seems like every time the Dems have taken back the WH in modern times: 1976, 1992, 2020(arguably even 1960) , the Republicans surge in the end of the campaign but the one exception to that was 2008 .

2004 was sort of the inverse of that. Bush had a big lead coming out of the convention but Kerry slowly narrowed the gap, especially after the first debate when he clobbered Bush.

[BigVic]

1992:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYHVpEnJeEs&t=1564s




1996: Can't Find


2000:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXhGjmFhHbI



2004:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzjQdmC-6W0&t=551s





2008:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKPZ8ucmGBo&t=964s




2012:

https://youtu.be/bdgg1rZTPQ0



2016:

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-election-day/nbc-s-final-battleground-map-shows-clinton-edge-n678926




2020:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg4ldloe8EU

An interesting analysis of every swing state since 1992.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Ironically, Clinton swept most of the toss up states in 1992 but Bush swept most of the final toss up states on election night itself (Clinton was ahead by about 350-80 but won by 'only' 370-168).

They did call states much faster for Clinton than the ones for Bush. Like they called GA and NH at poll closing times meaning their exits must have been of there

[OSR stands with Israel]

Whats funny is if you see the 2000 clip you can see how they are emphasizing that this election is close and can truly go either way and how we may have to wait past midnight to know who is going to win. While now days its kinda expected for elections to go past midnight as 4 of the 6 elections this century have, in 2000 an election being close was something that hadnt happened since 1976 so it was viewed as something new.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Ironically, Clinton swept most of the toss up states in 1992 but Bush swept most of the final toss up states on election night itself (Clinton was ahead by about 350-80 but won by 'only' 370-168).

They did call states much faster for Clinton than the ones for Bush. Like they called GA and NH at poll closing times meaning their exits must have been of there

And yet somehow, Georgia was the closest state in '92. Exit polling really took a hit since then, but then so has polling in general I suppose.

[South Dakota Democrat]

One thing that stands out to me is that FL was considered Safe R rather than a battleground in 1992. Why was this? Especially considering Clinton did flip the state four years later.

Bush won it by over 20 points the previous election.

[Schiff for Senate]

One thing that stands out to me is that FL was considered Safe R rather than a battleground in 1992. Why was this? Especially considering Clinton did flip the state four years later.

Bush won it by over 20 points the previous election.

So? As far as 1988/1992 go, that doesn't prove much at all (1988 to 1992 is the largest swing in four years in modern presidential history). In 1988, NH was Bush+26, and his second strongest state nationally, and four years later, it voted for Bill Clinton. GA, which borders FL, also supported Bush by north of 20 points in 1988, only to flip to Clinton four years later.