Changing presidential map or not?

[Gustaf]

Thought I would throw this out there: a map of Bush's latest approval ratings (admittedly about 6 months old now) from SUSA, adjusted for national eqilibrium:

Basically, no changes. It could be a unique Bush map though - perhaps it will change radically with new candidates. Anyway, discuss.

[Reignman]

An interesting map, but I think we can expect some states that are much more competitive than others that have Bush's approval rating at the same place.

[Rawlings]

Thought I would throw this out there: a map of Bush's latest approval ratings (admittedly about 6 months old now) from SUSA, adjusted for national eqilibrium:

Basically, no changes. It could be a unique Bush map though - perhaps it will change radically with new candidates. Anyway, discuss.

I would say you're pretty accurate.  Here's my map with a few changes--but same result.  I hope I'm wrong but I think Ohio's turn to the Democrats will kill us in 2008...

[Verily]

Thought I would throw this out there: a map of Bush's latest approval ratings (admittedly about 6 months old now) from SUSA, adjusted for national eqilibrium:

Basically, no changes. It could be a unique Bush map though - perhaps it will change radically with new candidates. Anyway, discuss.

It's nice to see that the Democrats lead on the national equilibrium. Louisiana is a bit troubling for Landrieu's reelection prospects in 2008. Missouri and Oregon should obviously be switched.

Interesting map overall.

[Reignman]

I think both of the maps are potentially correct. It seems like these days the GOP's chances of winning Minnesota in '08 are about what the Democrats' are for winning Missouri.

[Alcon]

This says a lot about political bases, too.  I don't think that many people really see Oregon going Republican or Missouri Democratic in a tied election.   I imagine it's just that the 2004 Bush voters in Missouri are more likely to be angry than in Oregon.

Obviously also some economics-related zaniness going on here too.

[Rawlings]

This says a lot about political bases, too.  I don't think that many people really see Oregon going Republican or Missouri Democratic in a tied election.   I imagine it's just that the 2004 Bush voters in Missouri are more likely to be angry than in Oregon.

Obviously also some economics-related zaniness going on here too.

Some of Bush's worst numbers are in Missouri.  I think it has a real chance of turning.  But alternatively, I think Oregon could switch, too. I know it's crazy liberal but Bush actually got closer in '04 than 2000.  That may or may not be a trend.  On my map if Oregon and Missouri switched the Dems would still win.  But if the GOP holds MO and takes OR they win...

[Adlai Stevenson]

This says a lot about political bases, too.  I don't think that many people really see Oregon going Republican or Missouri Democratic in a tied election.   I imagine it's just that the 2004 Bush voters in Missouri are more likely to be angry than in Oregon.

Obviously also some economics-related zaniness going on here too.

Some of Bush's worst numbers are in Missouri.  I think it has a real chance of turning.  But alternatively, I think Oregon could switch, too. I know it's crazy liberal but Bush actually got closer in '04 than 2000.  That may or may not be a trend.  On my map if Oregon and Missouri switched the Dems would still win.  But if the GOP holds MO and takes OR they win...

How did Bush get closer in 2004?!  Kerry beat Bush by 4.06% in Oregon - 51.35%-47.19%.  In 2000, Gore defeated Bush by 0.44% of the vote, 46.96%-46.52%. 

[Gustaf]

This says a lot about political bases, too.  I don't think that many people really see Oregon going Republican or Missouri Democratic in a tied election.   I imagine it's just that the 2004 Bush voters in Missouri are more likely to be angry than in Oregon.

Obviously also some economics-related zaniness going on here too.

Some of Bush's worst numbers are in Missouri.  I think it has a real chance of turning.  But alternatively, I think Oregon could switch, too. I know it's crazy liberal but Bush actually got closer in '04 than 2000.  That may or may not be a trend.  On my map if Oregon and Missouri switched the Dems would still win.  But if the GOP holds MO and takes OR they win...

How did Bush get closer in 2004?!  Kerry beat Bush by 4.06% in Oregon - 51.35%-47.19%.  In 2000, Gore defeated Bush by 0.44% of the vote, 46.96%-46.52%. 

Once one includes Nader? But I don't think Oregon is going anywhere. It should be noted that Oregon is only narrowly Republican on this map and still is heftily against Bush with that. It may just be MoE, etc. The same caution applies to Missouri. Ohio seems to have swung in the Democratic direction though not by as much as some here seem to expect.

[minionofmidas]

This says a lot about political bases, too.  I don't think that many people really see Oregon going Republican or Missouri Democratic in a tied election.   I imagine it's just that the 2004 Bush voters in Missouri are more likely to be angry than in Oregon.

Obviously also some economics-related zaniness going on here too.

Yeah. Oregon is simply more polarized than Missouri. (Or another way of putting it: Bush had less soft support in the first place that has since eroded in Oregon than he had in Missouri.)

[Reignman]

Oregon is more moderate than Missouri, but it has more hard-left people than the number of hard-right people in Missouri.

[True Democrat]

Thought I would throw this out there: a map of Bush's latest approval ratings (admittedly about 6 months old now) from SUSA, adjusted for national eqilibrium:

Basically, no changes. It could be a unique Bush map though - perhaps it will change radically with new candidates. Anyway, discuss.

I think that this is about right. Looking at the map, Bush`s polls  must not be as bad as people say that they are.

That map is Bush's poll numbers adjusted for the national average.  Bush is actually polling at about 35%.

[memphis]

Thought I would throw this out there: a map of Bush's latest approval ratings (admittedly about 6 months old now) from SUSA, adjusted for national eqilibrium:

Basically, no changes. It could be a unique Bush map though - perhaps it will change radically with new candidates. Anyway, discuss.

I think that this is about right. Looking at the map, Bush`s polls  must not be as bad as people say that they are.

That map is Bush's poll numbers adjusted for the national average.  Bush is actually polling at about 35%.

What would a map look like with a 35% job approval rating then?

Everything red except for Wyoming, Utah, and Idaho. However, just because people disapprove of Bush does not mean they're going to rush out and vote Democratic in 2008.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I wouldn't count on Minnesota going Republican in 2008.  The only way that would happen is if McCain is nominated and he chooses Pawlenty as his running mate, and even that would be a long shot.  Pawlenty barely survived 2006 with 47% of the vote, which was 0.9% ahead of his opponent, who had some serious gaffes in the week before the election.

The Democrats control both the state house and senate with just a few seats shy of super majorities.  I just don't see where you guys think Minnesota, which has voted Republican once since 1960, will magically go Republican in 2008 while Iowa will go Democratic.  Obviously you don't know politics here very well at all.

[Verily]

Thought I would throw this out there: a map of Bush's latest approval ratings (admittedly about 6 months old now) from SUSA, adjusted for national eqilibrium:

Basically, no changes. It could be a unique Bush map though - perhaps it will change radically with new candidates. Anyway, discuss.

I think that this is about right. Looking at the map, Bush`s polls  must not be as bad as people say that they are.

That map is Bush's poll numbers adjusted for the national average.  Bush is actually polling at about 35%.

What would a map look like with a 35% job approval rating then?

Bush's approval rating in November 2006 (last available for all 50 states), unadjusted. Wyoming approves 49-48, Idaho 55-43, and Utah 55-42. Everyone else disapproves, New York the most (24-74).

It actually looks a lot like a Presidential map with a massive swing to the Democrats.

[Tender Branson]

Hmm. I think the '08 map will look quite a bit different than in 2000 and 2004. I agree with some others here that MO is currently "Lean Republican" (the April Bush approval was at 38% in that state, which is high IMO).

OR, MN, PA, MI should be "Lean Democrat" right now. (~5% in favor)

I also tend to say that IA, NM and NH are "Slightly Democrat" (2-5%)

This leaves NV, CO and OH as the main battlegrounds for 2008. (+/-2%)

The rest, AR, WV, VA, NC and FL are also "Lean Republican". (~5%)

[auburntiger]

Hmm. I think the '08 map will look quite a bit different than in 2000 and 2004. I agree with some others here that MO is currently "Lean Republican" (the April Bush approval was at 38% in that state, which is high IMO).

OR, MN, PA, MI should be "Lean Democrat" right now. (~5% in favor)

I also tend to say that IA, NM and NH are "Slightly Democrat" (2-5%)

This leaves NV, CO and OH as the main battlegrounds for 2008. (+/-2%)

The rest, AR, WV, VA, NC and FL are also "Lean Republican". (~5%)

Put AZ instead of NC in the "Lean Repubican" column. NC has a long way to go before being considered anything but solid republican.

[memphis]

Hmm. I think the '08 map will look quite a bit different than in 2000 and 2004. I agree with some others here that MO is currently "Lean Republican" (the April Bush approval was at 38% in that state, which is high IMO).

OR, MN, PA, MI should be "Lean Democrat" right now. (~5% in favor)

I also tend to say that IA, NM and NH are "Slightly Democrat" (2-5%)

This leaves NV, CO and OH as the main battlegrounds for 2008. (+/-2%)

The rest, AR, WV, VA, NC and FL are also "Lean Republican". (~5%)

So how will '08 be "quite different" than '04? You have all the competitive states going the same way they went three years ago, with a slight bump for the Dems.

[memphis]

memphis, I am curious in your opinion.

Predict, Missouri, Tennessee, and Arkansas in 2008... three hicky states!

Really, really depends on who the nominees are. Missouri is most likely to flip to the Dems followed by Arkansas. I don't see a Dem winning TN unless it is a 400 EV landslide.

[Tender Branson]

Hmm. I think the '08 map will look quite a bit different than in 2000 and 2004. I agree with some others here that MO is currently "Lean Republican" (the April Bush approval was at 38% in that state, which is high IMO).

OR, MN, PA, MI should be "Lean Democrat" right now. (~5% in favor)

I also tend to say that IA, NM and NH are "Slightly Democrat" (2-5%)

This leaves NV, CO and OH as the main battlegrounds for 2008. (+/-2%)

The rest, AR, WV, VA, NC and FL are also "Lean Republican". (~5%)

So how will '08 be "quite different" than '04? You have all the competitive states going the same way they went three years ago, with a slight bump for the Dems.

And ? I´m not a fortune teller. Do you expect me to make Nebraska competetive ?  I can´t change the physics of Presidential Elections. For me it is "quite different" if OH, NV and CO flip at the same time to the Dems in '08. But that´s all worth nothing if there´s some kind of landslide (which I do not assume) and it certainly depends on the candidates.

[memphis]

memphis, I am curious in your opinion.

Predict, Missouri, Tennessee, and Arkansas in 2008... three hicky states!

Really, really depends on who the nominees are. Missouri is most likely to flip to the Dems followed by Arkansas. I don't see a Dem winning TN unless it is a 400 EV landslide.

kinda sad to say that of those three states, Missouri is the most socially liberal..lol

Missouri is the most urban. Neither TN nor AR has a metro area the size of St. Louis. Memphis and Nashville combined are about the same size, but then you have Kansas City too.