Should "expanding the map" be a priority for Democrats?

[Joe Biden 2028]

I really think Alaska has potential. It moved leftward by a lot in 2020 and voted for a Democrat in 2022. Having Mary Peltola on the ticket might carry Biden.

Trump won Alaska by 9 points. That seems like a lot until you realize that Alaska has so few people that a few thousand can swing the state.

[The Economy is Getting Worse]

I really think Alaska has potential. It moved leftward by a lot in 2020 and voted for a Democrat in 2022. Having Mary Peltola on the ticket might carry Biden.

Trump won Alaska by 9 points. That seems like a lot until you realize that Alaska has so few people that a few thousand can swing the state.

It's a terrible idea for Biden to campaign in Alaska. It's far more likely to drag Peltola down than be the decisive 3 electoral votes. So not only are you spending more resources, but you are hurting the party. Alaska isn't a cheap state to compete in given how far it is away from the rest of the nation and how spread out it is (ie doing an in-person rally is not feasible, and a ground game would be expensive too).

Biden should triage FL for this reason too: DMP will likely outrun Biden significantly. Biden might even lose Miami-Dade, which will be a huge drag. The Democrats should hope that the abortion referendum increases turnout enough for Democrats to not fall behind in turnout again, and only campaign for DMP.

Biden should also triage OH: he's a big drag on Brown.

Biden should make a push in TX because Allred's or whoever the Democrats put up performance will be far more tied to Biden. I could see FL Senate flipping at Trump +6.5 in an extreme case (though a more likely cutoff is 3 or so), though TX probably needs to be within 2 regardless of what happens (and I wouldn't discount the possibility of Cruz outperforming Trump). Ohio probably needs to be more than Trump +9.9 to flip.

Finally, if Trump is the nominee, there is no scenario where IA is the tipping point state, so Biden shouldn't compete there either.

[DS0816]

Democrats have lost 3 Obama states [Iowa, Ohio, and Florida; with Maine’s 2nd Congressional District] that together make up [54] electoral votes.

Yes, Democrats gained 2 "Biden" states [Arizona and Georgia; with Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District], but those only have [28] electoral votes.

That makes winning that much harder.

Do Democrats need to "expand the map"?

Answer to your question is: Yes. But, it applies as well to the Republicans.

Those states you mentioned (I put into brackets for further emphasis) have realigned.

I addressed that topic here: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=441838.msg8079566#msg8079566.

So, the rest of my response will assume those states (and congressional districts) are now realigned.



Since 1992 (post-1980s), there has been a pattern. It is detailed. The average number of carried states, by presidential winners, has been 29. The range has been between 25 (a 2020 Joe Biden) and 32 (a 1992 Bill Clinton). The winning Republicans have averaged 30 carried states, 287 electoral votes, and 9 electoral votes per carried state. The winning Democrats have averaged 28 carried states, 350 electoral votes, and 12 electoral votes per carried state.

If much of this pattern continues to play out in future elections—and this reminds me of the period of 1876 to 1900 (when no winner carried 70 percent or more of the nation’s states)—then I would anticipate what can be coming. This would be with scenarios for either of the two major United States political parties, Republican and Democratic.

First I will identify the leading bellwether states are: Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (probable order, based on percentage-points margins, for Democrats) and Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan (probable order for Republicans). The next state, which I rate a sleeper bellwether, is North Carolina. It was the next state in line, of those not carried, for 2012 re-elected Barack Obama and 2020 first-term-elected Joe Biden. A 2012 Obama carried 26 states. (His No. 27 best was North Carolina.) A 2020 Biden carried 25 states. (His No. 26 best was North Carolina.) In those elections, Obama and Biden won the U.S. Popular Vote by +3.86 and +4.45 percentage points, with an average of +4.15 percentage points, and a whole-number estimate of +4. They needed to win the U.S. Popular Vote by +5 to carry North Carolina. So, my guess about that state is it will join the Rust Belt trio to regularly carry for presidential election winners by getting back to that routine in 2024.

All four bellwether and sleeper bellwether states, on the following maps, appear in medium shades (medium light for a 2024 pickup) to show they are continuing bellwether states to carry for a winning party. The light shades are for, and truthfully I do not care for this term, expansion states.

DEMOCRATIC
Start with Election 2020 map and add numerous gains (with states rank, cumulative electoral votes, and U.S. Popular Vote target margin).
26. North Carolina (cumulative 319 electoral votes; U.S. Popular Vote target margin: +5)
27. Texas (cum. 359; target margin: +6)
28. Alaska (cum. 362; target margin: +7)
The above reaches the party’s average number of carried states, in winning elections since 1992, but to go even further:
29. South Carolina (cum. 371; target margin: +8)
30. Montana (cum. 375; target margin: +9)
31. Kansas (cum. 381; target margin: +10)
— Nebraska’s 1st Congressional District (cum. 382; target margin: +10)

REPUBLICAN
Start with the party’s losing Election 2020 map, with perusal of Elections 2024 and 2028 allocation of states’s electoral votes, and supposing (but not predicting) their next pickup as soon as 2024 (with states rank, cumulative electoral votes, and U.S. Popular Vote target margin).
26. Wisconsin (cumulative 245 electoral votes; U.S. Popular Vote target margin: –2)
27. Pennsylvania (cum. 264; target margin: –1)
28. Michigan (cum. 279; target margin: +0; the Tipping-Point State)
29. New Hampshire (cum. 283; target margin: +1)
30. Minnesota (cum. 293; target margin: +2)
The above reaches the party’s average number of carried states, in winning elections since 1992, but to go even further:
31. New Jersey (cum. 307; target margin: +3)
32. Illinois (cum. 326; target margin: +4)
33. California (cum. 380; target margin: +5)




With the potential for Democrats: Since 2012, Alaska and South Carolina have been voting like next-door-neighbors for where they rank in best-performed states. Although not carried, they were the party’s Nos. 31 and 32 best states, in 2016 and 2020, while Texas was No. 29 and then No. 28. Given Florida, Ohio, and Iowa (as well Maine’s 2nd Congressional District) slotted around or between the Texas-to-Alaska/South Carolina group, and have realigned to the Republicans, these three [Texas/Alaska/South Carolina] will likely move up in rank and generally in closer reach for the Democrats. (The party will have to build an infrastructure in the Palmetto State. Carrying only two of the state’s ten most-populous counties, regularly, may make this appear to be impossible.) South Carolina has voted the same as Texas since 1972. With exception of 2008, those two states have voted the same as North Carolina also since 1972. Alaska has voted the same as South Carolina in 13 of the 16 election cycles since the state first voted in 1960. (Exceptions were in 1960, 1964, and 1976. So, they have voted the same since 1980.)

With the potential for Republicans: New Hampshire and Minnesota, which averaged 1.24 percentage points in their margins spread since 2004 (in 2020, their spread was 0.24), are like neighbors. They are also in proximity, in the rankings of best-performed states, to leading bellwethers Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan (probable Republican order). I see these two as the substitutes for a post-Election 2020 Republican Party’s next winning map which no longer include Georgia, Arizona, and Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District. As for the trio of those slotted at Nos. 31, 32, and 33: New Jersey and Illinois have carried the same, with exception of 1948, since 1892. (So, 32 of the last 33 election cycles of 1892 to 2020.) Illinois and California have carried the same, with exceptions of 1880, 1912, 1916, and 1960, since the latter first voted in 1852. (So, 39 of the last 43 election cycles.) The difficulty with those three is where they are lately—with at least two routinely among the ten best states carried by Democrats. But, given Elections 2000 and 2004, this was the area where Texas was in favor of the Republicans. (And Alaska was up there as well as ten-best for the GOP.) Plus: A map in which a Democrat wins with both California and Texas in the column is not going to be greeted with a Republican Party figuring, “We give up!” Historically, only two U.S. presidential elections—1916 and 1948—have seen Candidate A carry the two most-populous states while Candidate B prevailed. So, this may not have potential until after getting past the 2020s. But, I would consider all this (plus the likes of Nevada and statewide Maine).

[Alben Barkley]

Not this cycle. This cycle is all about defending. Once again, it probably all comes down to WI/MI/PA and maybe also NV/AZ/GA. I really have a hard time seeing a Biden "landslide" win bigger than 2020+NC, or a Trump win bigger than 2016+NV. Neither party therefore should be too concerned about winning states they haven't won in years, but rather optimizing their path out of a relatively narrow rage of outcomes. Yes, it is true Biden won two states last time Democrats hadn't won in decades, and same for Trump in 2016, but I foresee far fewer big swings in an exact rematch this time. Texas swinging considerably left and flipping is the only remotely big change I can see even possibly happening, and it's a big reach to say the least. I guess Alaska COULD happen, but honestly it's an afterthought; it is very unlikely the election will come down to its 3 EVs.

[BushKerry04]

President Biden and Democrats should focus on maintaining the blue wall (WI, PA, MI) and gains in AZ & GA. North Carolina should also be a priority. Money spent in Ohio should be focused on re-electing Sherrod Brown in 2024.

Now, let's fast forward to 2026, 2028, 2030, etc. Texas becomes interesting at that point, and they should invest there. If Gretchen Whitmer is the nominee in 2028, Ohio could be in play for President. Florida is a lost cause because of conservative retirees moving there. Iowa is a bit of a reach, but again Whitmer could make it competitive.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Only NC and TX are worth targeting as potential tipping points. TX is unlikely to be a tipping point, but it’s early enough in the campaign that it’s still worth considering for now.

“Stretch goals” (only keeping them in mind because were over a year out from the election) are ME-02 and FL, but Jared Golden probably doesn’t want Biden in his district and Florida is going to keep getting worse for Democrats. Maybe they’ll have a decent shot if both Trump and DeSantis somehow fumble the nomination, but the only good reason to invest in it (even then) would be downballot races.

[Sir Mohamed]

Definitely. NC is the prime target, obviously, but also focus on TX. Even if Biden falls short in the end, it forces the GOP to play defense and invest ressources there. And in addition might help downballot candidates for the House and state legislature.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

Lol OH is the bellwether as I said lots of times Brown is winning by 13 if Brown wins it's a bellwether to red states but Brown isn't Superman he is helped by the fact that DeWine when he runs was much weaker in 2006/18 and not on the ballot in 2012/2024 if DeWine was on the ballot in 24 not in 22 you would of saw Ryan win and Brown lose

Chuck Todd says multiple times the Iron Triangle is OH, SC, NC and FL if OH goes the rest of them are likely to be Dand SC will be a battleground state 28 Scott is retiring and Harrison is running for that seat


The reason why Rs are having so much trouble in Appalachian is KY BESHEAR is overperformrned Cameron should of locked that race up a long time ago the fact Beshear is ahead doesn't bode well for Rs in Appalachian except for WV, IN and IA where no NAACP chapters are in those states

[BushKerry04]

Lol OH is the bellwether as I said lots of times Brown is winning by 13 if Brown wins it's a bellwether to red states but Brown isn't Superman he is helped by the fact that DeWine when he runs was much weaker in 2006/18 and not on the ballot in 2012/2024 if DeWine was on the ballot in 24 not in 22 you would of saw Ryan win and Brown lose

Chuck Todd says multiple times the Iron Triangle is OH, SC, NC and FL if OH goes the rest of them are likely to be Dand SC will be a battleground state 28 Scott is retiring and Harrison is running for that sear

For the record, my prediction on Brown:

Brown Vs. Dolan = Dolan +2
Brown Vs. LaRose = Brown +3
Brown Vs. Moreno = Brown +8

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

If we win OH it opens the door for red states

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

Democrats have lost 3 Obama states [Iowa, Ohio, and Florida; with Maine’s 2nd Congressional District] that together make up [54] electoral votes.

Yes, Democrats gained 2 "Biden" states [Arizona and Georgia; with Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District], but those only have [28] electoral votes.

That makes winning that much harder.

Do Democrats need to "expand the map"?

Answer to your question is: Yes. But, it applies as well to the Republicans.

Those states you mentioned (I put into brackets for further emphasis) have realigned.

I addressed that topic here: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=441838.msg8079566#msg8079566.

So, the rest of my response will assume those states (and congressional districts) are now realigned.



Since 1992 (post-1980s), there has been a pattern. It is detailed. The average number of carried states, by presidential winners, has been 29. The range has been between 25 (a 2020 Joe Biden) and 32 (a 1992 Bill Clinton). The winning Republicans have averaged 30 carried states, 287 electoral votes, and 9 electoral votes per carried state. The winning Democrats have averaged 28 carried states, 350 electoral votes, and 12 electoral votes per carried state.

If much of this pattern continues to play out in future elections—and this reminds me of the period of 1876 to 1900 (when no winner carried 70 percent or more of the nation’s states)—then I would anticipate what can be coming. This would be with scenarios for either of the two major United States political parties, Republican and Democratic.

First I will identify the leading bellwether states are: Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (probable order, based on percentage-points margins, for Democrats) and Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan (probable order for Republicans). The next state, which I rate a sleeper bellwether, is North Carolina. It was the next state in line, of those not carried, for 2012 re-elected Barack Obama and 2020 first-term-elected Joe Biden. A 2012 Obama carried 26 states. (His No. 27 best was North Carolina.) A 2020 Biden carried 25 states. (His No. 26 best was North Carolina.) In those elections, Obama and Biden won the U.S. Popular Vote by +3.86 and +4.45 percentage points, with an average of +4.15 percentage points, and a whole-number estimate of +4. They needed to win the U.S. Popular Vote by +5 to carry North Carolina. So, my guess about that state is it will join the Rust Belt trio to regularly carry for presidential election winners by getting back to that routine in 2024.

All four bellwether and sleeper bellwether states, on the following maps, appear in medium shades (medium light for a 2024 pickup) to show they are continuing bellwether states to carry for a winning party. The light shades are for, and truthfully I do not care for this term, expansion states.

DEMOCRATIC
Start with Election 2020 map and add numerous gains (with states rank, cumulative electoral votes, and U.S. Popular Vote target margin).
26. North Carolina (cumulative 319 electoral votes; U.S. Popular Vote target margin: +5)
27. Texas (cum. 359; target margin: +6)
28. Alaska (cum. 362; target margin: +7)
The above reaches the party’s average number of carried states, in winning elections since 1992, but to go even further:
29. South Carolina (cum. 371; target margin: +8)
30. Montana (cum. 375; target margin: +9)
31. Kansas (cum. 381; target margin: +10)
— Nebraska’s 1st Congressional District (cum. 382; target margin: +10)

REPUBLICAN
Start with the party’s losing Election 2020 map, with perusal of Elections 2024 and 2028 allocation of states’s electoral votes, and supposing (but not predicting) their next pickup as soon as 2024 (with states rank, cumulative electoral votes, and U.S. Popular Vote target margin).
26. Wisconsin (cumulative 245 electoral votes; U.S. Popular Vote target margin: –2)
27. Pennsylvania (cum. 264; target margin: –1)
28. Michigan (cum. 279; target margin: +0; the Tipping-Point State)
29. New Hampshire (cum. 283; target margin: +1)
30. Minnesota (cum. 293; target margin: +2)
The above reaches the party’s average number of carried states, in winning elections since 1992, but to go even further:
31. New Jersey (cum. 307; target margin: +3)
32. Illinois (cum. 326; target margin: +4)
33. California (cum. 380; target margin: +5)




With the potential for Democrats: Since 2012, Alaska and South Carolina have been voting like next-door-neighbors for where they rank in best-performed states. Although not carried, they were the party’s Nos. 31 and 32 best states, in 2016 and 2020, while Texas was No. 29 and then No. 28. Given Florida, Ohio, and Iowa (as well Maine’s 2nd Congressional District) slotted around or between the Texas-to-Alaska/South Carolina group, and have realigned to the Republicans, these three [Texas/Alaska/South Carolina] will likely move up in rank and generally in closer reach for the Democrats. (The party will have to build an infrastructure in the Palmetto State. Carrying only two of the state’s ten most-populous counties, regularly, may make this appear to be impossible.) South Carolina has voted the same as Texas since 1972. With exception of 2008, those two states have voted the same as North Carolina also since 1972. Alaska has voted the same as South Carolina in 13 of the 16 election cycles since the state first voted in 1960. (Exceptions were in 1960, 1964, and 1976. So, they have voted the same since 1980.)

With the potential for Republicans: New Hampshire and Minnesota, which averaged 1.24 percentage points in their margins spread since 2004 (in 2020, their spread was 0.24), are like neighbors. They are also in proximity, in the rankings of best-performed states, to leading bellwethers Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan (probable Republican order). I see these two as the substitutes for a post-Election 2020 Republican Party’s next winning map which no longer include Georgia, Arizona, and Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District. As for the trio of those slotted at Nos. 31, 32, and 33: New Jersey and Illinois have carried the same, with exception of 1948, since 1892. (So, 32 of the last 33 election cycles of 1892 to 2020.) Illinois and California have carried the same, with exceptions of 1880, 1912, 1916, and 1960, since the latter first voted in 1852. (So, 39 of the last 43 election cycles.) The difficulty with those three is where they are lately—with at least two routinely among the ten best states carried by Democrats. But, given Elections 2000 and 2004, this was the area where Texas was in favor of the Republicans. (And Alaska was up there as well as ten-best for the GOP.) Plus: A map in which a Democrat wins with both California and Texas in the column is not going to be greeted with a Republican Party figuring, “We give up!” Historically, only two U.S. presidential elections—1916 and 1948—have seen Candidate A carry the two most-populous states while Candidate B prevailed. So, this may not have potential until after getting past the 2020s. But, I would consider all this (plus the likes of Nevada and statewide Maine).

Lol Brown is leading by 13, 45/32 he won't win by that much but 6 and in 2012 Obama and Biden won OH by 3

Brown 51/45 v LaRose
Biden 51/48 def Trump in OH


Biden won OH and FL and AK and NC in 2008/12 we lost NC due to Bev Perdue unpopulararity

It's worth noting John Kasich and Dick Cheney whom have OH ties have already endorsed Biden4Prez 24 and DeWine isn't on the ballot that solely pushed Vance thru since it was only a 5 pt race compared to DeWine 25 pt blowout


Riverwalk thinks Ds cannot win FL and OH and Scott is only up 3 not 16 and Brown is ahead by 13 not losing by 25

[The Economy is Getting Worse]

Not this cycle. This cycle is all about defending. Once again, it probably all comes down to WI/MI/PA and maybe also NV/AZ/GA. I really have a hard time seeing a Biden "landslide" win bigger than 2020+NC, or a Trump win bigger than 2016+NV. Neither party therefore should be too concerned about winning states they haven't won in years, but rather optimizing their path out of a relatively narrow rage of outcomes. Yes, it is true Biden won two states last time Democrats hadn't won in decades, and same for Trump in 2016, but I foresee far fewer big swings in an exact rematch this time. Texas swinging considerably left and flipping is the only remotely big change I can see even possibly happening, and it's a big reach to say the least. I guess Alaska COULD happen, but honestly it's an afterthought; it is very unlikely the election will come down to its 3 EVs.

WI/PA/NV are probably the 3 most competitive states in a close election. MI likely votes to the left of all.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

We are very likely to get 3 scenarios all with Biden winning from 50/25)25 a like split map winning the H and winning OH and MT S as wave insurance but losing MT and OH in the Prez race the 2 ND most likely a wave map up to 415 EC votes and winning OH as the bellwether or the least like winning the Prez and H but losing OH and MT and WV seats but the highest probability is split vote OH and MT for S v Prez and Ds winning 303 and 218 DH and 51/50 S

The idea that there is no way we can win OH is silly it's not IA it's Arab and blk and have white females that voted D in it just like we won it in 1992)96/2006/08)12)18

IA, WV and IN don't have NAACP chapters in them

It's a 303 map AZ and GA won't be won by a Nikki Haley, Ernst, Bachman or Reynolds candidates against Biden v Hillary yes but not Biden and Harris is gonna be stronger in 28 West Moore is gonna be her Veep he is very well liked like OBAMA

[Duke 🇺🇸]

The Democrats should not worry about expanding the map until they are confident they can win with what they have. PA, WI, NV, AZ, and GA are not slam dunks.

[Storr]

Yes, by giving Puerto Rico and Guam + Northern Marianas Islands electoral votes, like DC.

(But as to what the OP meant about expanding the existing map: also yes. Even if it takes a more elections, flipping or making Texas simply a tossup state would have massive favorable impacts for Democrats in Presidential elections.)

[ProgressiveModerate]

To be fair, OH and FL were never really Dem-leaning states these past 2 decades, though they've def fallen further out of reach.

Meanwhile, states like AZ and GA went from being genuinely R-leaning to true swing states and possibly D-leaning ones.

Also consider Democrats have turned states that were swingy during the Obama years like VA and CO to reliably D, at least on the federal level.