Battleground states

[°Leprechaun]

This map is based on a poll from last August:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=44098.0

[Joe Biden 2020]

I voted yes, but the only thing I would change is color New Hampshire pink, instead of gray.  It is trending Democratic, and I don't forsee it giving much thought to the Republican party, but yet won't throw its full support behind the Democratic party

[Alcon]

I'd probably make Missouri another shade darker of blue, maybe New Hampshire pink, although both of those are probably based on a nothern candidate.  There's an argument to be made for a pink Michigan too, and a light blue Florida.

Otherwise, seems OK.

[Boris]

Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire = pink
Missouri, Florida, maybe Colorado = light blue

[Tender Branson]

Mostly yes, maybe AZ dark blue, MO and FL light blue.

I´m a bit confused about PA and NJ because of the latest Quinnipiac and Keystone polls, which show the Republicans doing fine in both states, but at this stage it doesn´t mean much and would color NJ pink and let PA grey.

[jokerman]

I don't see why West Virginia is dark blue.

[Padfoot]

Minnesota = red
Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire = pink
Florida, Missouri = light blue
Arizona, Arkansas, Virginia = dark blue

That's based purely on generic candidates from both parties.  Obviously it could be much different depending on the nominees.

[opebo]

Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania = red
Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Ohio = pink
Florida = light blue

[MasterJedi]

Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire= pink
Nevada, Colorado, Missouri= light blue

[Reignman]

yes

[°Leprechaun]

Perhaps this map is a little better:

[cp]

I think that map is about right based on where we are now, but I doubt that's how it will play out.

I have nothing but intuition to back this up, but I have a feeling that the electoral maps we'll be playing with (within the realm of reason) in 18 months would blow our minds today. I doubt it would be a dramatic switching of states from red to blue to swing, but perhaps a landslide-type scenario. Or maybe a single non sequitor state that throws everyone for a loop, like a tight race between Giuliani and Clinton in the tristate area.

The reason I think this is that electoral college results have tended to go in two trends over the past 50 years. Either they look basically identical to the previous election, or they look wildly different with one side being crushed (even if it's not a landslide). The exceptions are 1960 and 2000 where it was so close, the maps were basically split half and half.

Why will 2008 not look identical to the previous maps? It's a watershed election. No sitting Pres/VP, wide-open races, internal party politics turned on their head, a divisive war, and just about anything else about the race so far that points to a break with the past.

It's a passing thought, but maybe I'll be vindicated in 20 months or so.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Nevada should be tossup and Missouri should be light R

Wisconson should be light B

[Rural Radical]

Add in West Virginia and Arkansas.

[tarheel-leftist85]

Not only for 2008 (b/c 2004 is etched in stone and all states shift uniformly), but forever and ever, amen.
(too bad that'll be less than 270 for the Dems. by 2012...but it doesn't matter, we'll have the Southwest--at least that's what we tell ourselves, even though the region has had Dem. governors many times while electing Republicans for everything else, just like the Deep South--as long as we abandon our principles of economic and social justice for the almighty centrism or Third Way)

[Speed of Sound]

Perhaps this map is a little better:

Inverted colors!!1!1!1!!!!11

Terrorist.

[°Leprechaun]

SOS,

Call me old fashioned/ call me over the hill...
but I like the 'old time' colors --- blue for d and red for r

[°Leprechaun]

Not only for 2008 (b/c 2004 is etched in stone and all states shift uniformly), but forever and ever, amen.
(too bad that'll be less than 270 for the Dems. by 2012...but it doesn't matter, we'll have the Southwest--at least that's what we tell ourselves, even though the region has had Dem. governors many times while electing Republicans for everything else, just like the Deep South--as long as we abandon our principles of economic and social justice for the almighty centrism or Third Way)

Interesting theory... do you think Iowa and Ohio will stay in the Repub's column?
What about Florida, any chance that could switch?

[opebo]

Not only for 2008 (b/c 2004 is etched in stone and all states shift uniformly), but forever and ever, amen.
(too bad that'll be less than 270 for the Dems. by 2012...but it doesn't matter, we'll have the Southwest--at least that's what we tell ourselves, even though the region has had Dem. governors many times while electing Republicans for everything else, just like the Deep South--as long as we abandon our principles of economic and social justice for the almighty centrism or Third Way)

Interesting theory... do you think Iowa and Ohio will stay in the Repub's column?
What about Florida, any chance that could switch?

I think Tarheel is dead on about the senselessness of the centrist 'Third Way' (a term better used for anal sex), but I think Ohio will opt for the Democrat even if he isn't economically leftist.  Iowa may or may not.  Florida should stay GOP.

What will cement places like Ohio and Iowa are good old fashioned liberalism, which the downtrodden lower classes are actually beginning to miss.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I say IA, NM, FL, OH, NH, WI, and PA as tossups and NV, CO, MO as light blue.

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

Virginia, Arizona, Missouri, Colorado, Arkansas and Florida are in no way, shape, or form going Democratic in 2008, especially with candidates like Hillary, Edwards, or Obama.  The only foreseeable way I can see Democrats picking up a state like VA is if they nominate a right-wing Democrat like Zell Miller with Jim Webb as VP, and even that would be a tough sell in solid Republican states like VA or CO.

The states to watch in 2008 are Wisconsin, PA, Ohio, and possibly New Jersey (presuming Rudy gets the GOP nod).

Since the new battlegrounds are traditionally blue Democratic states, it is going to be extremeley difficult (and unlikely) for liberal, Northeastern Democratic senators like Obama or Hillary to capture the White House in 2008, even if Republicans nominate a poor candidate like Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson

Coupled with that, Democrats are vastly over-estimating the Iraq war, Bush's low approval ratings, and the 2006 Democratic takeover of Congress as somehow "indicating" that this translates into an easy White House victory in 2008.  I predict there are going to be some very dissappointed Demcorats on November 3, 2008. 

[opebo]

I say IA, NM, FL, OH, NH, WI, and PA as tossups and NV, CO, MO as light blue.

No, PA is not a tossup at all, it leans strongly Democrat.  The others could be considered tossups, sure,  but not PA or NH.  And FL is just as light blue as MO, CO, and NV.

Virginia, Arizona, Missouri, Colorado, Arkansas and Florida are in no way, shape, or form going Democratic in 2008, especially with candidates like Hillary, Edwards, or Obama.  The only foreseeable way I can see Democrats picking up a state like VA is if they nominate a right-wing Democrat like Zell Miller with Jim Webb as VP, and even that would be a tough sell in solid Republican states like VA or CO.

Wishful thinking, Mikey, and very rooted in the past. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Absurd, Mikey.  To include NJ here is to completely discredit your post - the state would vote for any mainstream democrat over even Gulianai.  PA is clearly leaning Democrat and more strongly every year, and WI, though close, still went Dem in 2004, the pro-war peak.  As for Ohio it is trending Democrat with amazing rapidity.  I woul dare call it lean Democrat for 2008.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong, the 'new battlegrounds' if there are any are Colorado and Nevada.  The main change in the electoral map is that old battlegrounds are leaning Democrat now rather than GOP - namely Ohio - and former Dem-leaning battlegrounds are more firmly Dem - PA, MN, MI. 

You're extremely unlikely to get any state that Kerry won in 2004, and you are very likely to lose Ohio, and possibly, though less likely, Colorado, Nevada, Missouri, or Virginia.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very wishful thinking, Mikey - the national mood has turned in a big way, and there is a great deal of weariness after so many years of one party domination, wars, and decline in economic well-being.  The feeling is not unlike 1992 in that respect.

[Stranger in a strange land]

I say IA, NM, FL, OH, NH, WI, and PA as tossups and NV, CO, MO as light blue.

No, PA is not a tossup at all, it leans strongly Democrat.  The others could be considered tossups, sure,  but not PA or NH.  And FL is just as light blue as MO, CO, and NV.

Virginia, Arizona, Missouri, Colorado, Arkansas and Florida are in no way, shape, or form going Democratic in 2008, especially with candidates like Hillary, Edwards, or Obama.  The only foreseeable way I can see Democrats picking up a state like VA is if they nominate a right-wing Democrat like Zell Miller with Jim Webb as VP, and even that would be a tough sell in solid Republican states like VA or CO.

Wishful thinking, Mikey, and very rooted in the past. 

Opebo told you off much better than I ever could, but consider this: if an awkward, uncharismatic liberal like John Kerry who ran a terrible campaign could score in the high 40s in most of these states, it couldn't be that difficult for a better candidate running even a mediocre (as opposed to an abominable) campaign to win at least a few of them. And remember that Bush, for all his flaws, IS a good campaigner.

Your argument sounds like the thesis of Zell Miller's book, which was a presciect, penetrating analysis when it was written, but which is now obsolete. Katrina was a major factor, as was the fact that little progress has been made in Iraq, and that the war there seems to have mainly benefitted Iran. If Zell weren't senile, I daresay he might be considering coming back to the democratic party.

VA and CO are not solidly republican states. If they were, George Allen would still be in the Senate, with or without Macaca, and Colorado would still have a republican governor and 2 GOP senators.

[Rob]

Mikey is a joke poster, guys...

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

Mikey is a joke poster, guys...

No, its just that I'm a realist and I say things people don't want to hear.  Now go back and suck Hillary's shlong