Is NJ now a potential swing state?

[TechbroMBA]

Perhaps if Trump's second term is historically successful, but skeptical it will get tighter in 2028.

[HisGrace]

Not in the next couple cycles but in the future you may very well see the rust belt keep shifting right along with similar trends in parts of the northeast like upper New England and NJ, with the sun belt shifting left. So maps would look more like an old school pre Nixon map instead of variants on the "Jesusland" map.

[Progressive Pessimist]

No.

And as I keep saying, Trump never being the nominee again changes the entire electoral dynamic nationally.

[ottermax]

Harris just lost a ton of votes, Trump didn't make that many actual gains.

Anyone know where and why she lost votes?

[It's Time.]

No. My prediction is that this is just a fluke result, like Bush coming close in California and Hawaii in 2004.

[Duke 🇺🇸]

No. Bush also lost NJ in 2004 by a similarly close result.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I feel like it could join the VA/NH/MN/ME tier of states that tempt the GOP and where they may find occasionally success at the state level inf favorable environments, but I don't expect it to be a core swing state Presidentially.

I think it's an open question to what extent Trump's unique appeal here caused the state to be so close - appeal that other Rs will struggle to replicate.

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Probably not.  At best, it's a Virginia where the GOP's best chances lie with off-year or special elections (though, hey, no clue where the next two or four years will lead).   

[Virginiá]

Really seems like we should be waiting for at least one more election before trying to divine new trends at the state level when practically the whole country swung right. It doesn't necessarily mean it will stick. The votes had to come from somewhere. If every result like that did, we would have spent at least part of the last 12 years talking about battlegrounds Indiana and North Dakota just based on 2008.

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Really seems like we should be waiting for at least one more election before trying to divine new trends at the state level when practically the whole country swung right. It doesn't necessarily mean it will stick. The votes had to come from somewhere. If every result like that did, we would have spent at least part of the last 12 years talking about battlegrounds Indiana and North Dakota just based on 2008.

Anybody recall if these convos were had after Bush's performance in 2004?   Was NJ thought to be in play, for instance?   

[インターネット掲示板ユーザー Punxsutawney Phil]

Really seems like we should be waiting for at least one more election before trying to divine new trends at the state level when practically the whole country swung right. It doesn't necessarily mean it will stick. The votes had to come from somewhere. If every result like that did, we would have spent at least part of the last 12 years talking about battlegrounds Indiana and North Dakota just based on 2008.

It seems that peak partisan polarization might be past us now.

[TechbroMBA]

Really seems like we should be waiting for at least one more election before trying to divine new trends at the state level when practically the whole country swung right. It doesn't necessarily mean it will stick. The votes had to come from somewhere. If every result like that did, we would have spent at least part of the last 12 years talking about battlegrounds Indiana and North Dakota just based on 2008.

It's a state that has been relatively even in trading the governor's mansion between the two parties, and Murphy's reelection was around three points. I don't necessarily see why a Vance candidacy would immediately put it out of play.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Really seems like we should be waiting for at least one more election before trying to divine new trends at the state level when practically the whole country swung right. It doesn't necessarily mean it will stick. The votes had to come from somewhere. If every result like that did, we would have spent at least part of the last 12 years talking about battlegrounds Indiana and North Dakota just based on 2008.

Anybody recall if these convos were had after Bush's performance in 2004?   Was NJ thought to be in play, for instance?   

2004 was a far more of a traditional partisan election then this one really . Basically Bush and Kerry succeeded in turning out pretty much everyone who was a republican or democrat for themselves but 2004 being the peak of the “Reaganite three legged stool Conservativism” gave Bush the edge .

You can see that as there really weren’t any big swings in any direction like this time

[Roll Roons]

Really seems like we should be waiting for at least one more election before trying to divine new trends at the state level when practically the whole country swung right. It doesn't necessarily mean it will stick. The votes had to come from somewhere. If every result like that did, we would have spent at least part of the last 12 years talking about battlegrounds Indiana and North Dakota just based on 2008.

It's a state that has been relatively even in trading the governor's mansion between the two parties, and Murphy's reelection was around three points. I don't necessarily see why a Vance candidacy would immediately put it out of play.

It's actually trended Republican in all three of Trump's elections.

[Virginiá]

Really seems like we should be waiting for at least one more election before trying to divine new trends at the state level when practically the whole country swung right. It doesn't necessarily mean it will stick. The votes had to come from somewhere. If every result like that did, we would have spent at least part of the last 12 years talking about battlegrounds Indiana and North Dakota just based on 2008.

It's a state that has been relatively even in trading the governor's mansion between the two parties, and Murphy's reelection was around three points. I don't necessarily see why a Vance candidacy would immediately put it out of play.

I'm not saying it isn't becoming competitive, I'm just saying that taking this election as a whole, we could use more data.

[buritobr]

When I entered in this Forum between 2012 and 2016, there were lots of threads saying that some R states in the south would become swing states because of the growing population of latinos and the increase of the college towns.

Now, we see the opposite. I saw threads about New Jersey, New York and Illinois today

[Vosem]

Really seems like we should be waiting for at least one more election before trying to divine new trends at the state level when practically the whole country swung right. It doesn't necessarily mean it will stick. The votes had to come from somewhere. If every result like that did, we would have spent at least part of the last 12 years talking about battlegrounds Indiana and North Dakota just based on 2008.

Anybody recall if these convos were had after Bush's performance in 2004?   Was NJ thought to be in play, for instance?   

I think it was; Republicans made a very serious play for the Senate seat there in 2006, although nobody treated it like a swing state in 2008/2012. (And, for the record, it sort of was: as late as 2010, when both parties contested every House seat, Republicans *won* the total New Jersey vote. I think it always remained the sort of place that Republicans could hope for in a landslide; it's just that it has been a very long time since there's actually been a landslide environment). That said, though, Trump is going to do quite a bit better than Bush; he's going to lose NJ by 5 points while winning nationally by 1, not lose by 7 while winning nationally by 2. NJ is more Republican today than it was in 2004, although it's still not a place that Republicans can really depend on or anything.

Many of these numbers are really not finalized, such that I'd expect there to be multiple shifts once we see the "real" map, but here is the current 2004-->2024 swing map:

[Asta]

Andy Kim won the senate by approximately 9 points. Harris winning it by 5 points has more to do with her mediocre candidacy in NY metro, which leads me to believe that a significant # of voters only cared about putting Trump in and nothing else and whether these voters will appear again in 2028 for the GOP nominee is a big if.

Trump got slightly more # of voters than in 2020, but Harris lost a huge number of Biden voters that apparently stayed home so if Democrats elect the right candidate, they will win NJ by 10% or more. But the days of winning it by 15-20% is likely over.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Andy Kim won the senate by approximately 9 points. Harris winning it by 5 points has more to do with her mediocre candidacy, which leads me to believe that a significant # of voters only cared about putting Trump in and nothing else and whether these voters will appear again in 2028 for the GOP nominee is a big if.

Trump got slightly more # of voters than in 2020, but Harris lost huge number of Biden voters that apparently stayed home so if Democrats elect the right candidate, they will win NJ by 10% or more. But the days of winning it by 15-20% is likely over.

Only Obama ever managed to win the state by more than 16% anyway.

It's always been overestimated how blue we actually are. Republicans have a high floor here, and always will.

[Open Source Intelligence]

Unless the next 4 years and the 2028 primary is a disaster for Democrats, remember that the next Republican presidential nominee will not be named Donald Trump, and Republican performance without Trump at the top of the ticket the last 8 years has been circumspect. (2018 went very bad, and 2022 should've been bad for the Democrats but it wasn't.)

[Peppermint_Splatty]

Harris just lost a ton of votes, Trump didn't make that many actual gains.

Anyone know where and why she lost votes?

She lost ground among everybody but college educated whites

[CentristRepublican]

Not in any remotely competitive election; however, this election means NJ is now very much in play in any election where the GOP has a really good night (NJ could be a cherry on top). Or where Republicans strongly overperform with minorities.

Overall, I'm tacking it down from Safe D to Likely D though again, it will remain safely Democratic in any truly competitive election.

[Senator Incitatus]

Really seems like we should be waiting for at least one more election before trying to divine new trends at the state level when practically the whole country swung right. It doesn't necessarily mean it will stick. The votes had to come from somewhere. If every result like that did, we would have spent at least part of the last 12 years talking about battlegrounds Indiana and North Dakota just based on 2008.

Anybody recall if these convos were had after Bush's performance in 2004?   Was NJ thought to be in play, for instance?   

Pundits, including pretty much all of this forum, overstated Republican chances there in both 2005 and 2006.

[TechbroMBA]

When I entered in this Forum between 2012 and 2016, there were lots of threads saying that some R states in the south would become swing states because of the growing population of latinos and the increase of the college towns.

Now, we see the opposite. I saw threads about New Jersey, New York and Illinois today

This forum, for demographic reasons, seems to be very interested in Democratic expansion of the map and not very much for Republicans.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Can't be rules out