Is Washington trending Republican?

[HAnnA MArin County]

Hey I'm not from Washington and I don't think the state is "trending" Republican.

I agree, though. Trending is the most overused word on this forum.

From my understanding of Washington politics (which is very limited), the state is geographically polarized as is reiterated on this discussion. The Cascade Mountains separate the state ideologically with Eastern Washington being more rural and therefore more conservative/Republican whereas Western Washington is more urban and more liberal/Democratic. Correct, Washingtonians?

I don't see Washington going GOP in 2012, regardless of the candidate and regardless of how big of a "wave" year it is supposedly going to be for the Republicans. If the Republicans nominate a social conservative like Huckerbee or Failin Palin, the state will swing Democratic; if they nominate someone who doesn't emphasis the social issues and focuses more on fiscal issues, it'll swing Republican.

[Ogre Mage]

The Puget Sound region is the specific part of Western Washington which has swung liberal/toward the Democrats.  The exception is Pierce County, which has long been and still is a swing area.  Southwest Washington leans GOP, though not nearly to the extent that Eastern Washington does.  Republicans are very strong east of the Cascades.

While Seattle has long been strongly Democratic, its outlying suburbs used to be dominated by Country Club Republicans who preferred economic policies favoring well-heeled folk but were uneasy with social conservatism.  The late Rep. Jennifer Dunn was a good example of this.  The hard right turn of the state's GOP in the late 80s and early 90s turned many of these folks into swing voters as the decade wore on.

As for the topic of this thread, the answer is no, at least not at the Presidential level.  Washington is not a swing state in Presidential Politics.  Bush I could not win the state in 1988 in spite of a convincing victory overall and since then no one has come remotely close.  The swing voters I mentioned may be swinging to the GOP at the current moment but there is no evidence that this is permanent.  They have swung before and will again.  The Republican candidate in 2012 may very well have a better showing than McCain, but in terms of winning the state, it would take a Nixon/McGovern 1972 or Reagan/Mondale 1984 scenario, as others have suggested.

[Dgov]

As for the topic of this thread, the answer is no, at least not at the Presidential level.  Washington is not a swing state in Presidential Politics.  Bush I could not win the state in 1988 in spite of a convincing victory overall and since then no one has come remotely close.  The swing voters I mentioned may be swinging to the GOP at the current moment but there is no evidence that this is permanent.  They have swung before and will again.  The Republican candidate in 2012 may very well have a better showing than McCain, but in terms of winning the state, it would take a Nixon/McGovern 1972 or Reagan/Mondale 1984 scenario, as others have suggested.

I Disagree--The State as a whole is only D + 4, which is by no means insurmountable for a Republican.  A 1992-style win or even an 1988-style one would probably swing the state Atlas Blue today.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Actually, Washington was D+10 in 2004 and 2008.

[Dgov]

Actually, Washington was D+10 in 2004 and 2008.

Well, Obama only got 57% there while winning Nationally with 53%, and Kerry got 52% there while getting 48% Nationally, so if current patterns continue, A Democrat getting under 46% of the Vote Nationwide should lose the state.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Actually, Washington was D+10 in 2004 and 2008.

Well, Obama only got 57% there while winning Nationally with 53%, and Kerry got 52% there while getting 48% Nationally, so if current patterns continue, A Democrat getting under 46% of the Vote Nationwide should lose the state.

Your reasoning is wrong. First of all, Obama got 52.87 nationwide and  57.34 nationwide so that's almost a 4.5pts advantage. Then you forget that other canddates tend to do better in Washington than nationwide (almost 1 pt more).

So, let's take your hypothesis. Let's say Obama gets 45.87% (less than 46%) : Assuming others weigh the same, we can conclude that McCain would get 52.6%. We must thus take 7 points to Obama and give them to McCain. Washington results are :
Obama : 50.34%
McCain : 47.26%
Others : 2.4%

McCain loses, as you can see.

Now let's look at the right numbers. Obama won Washington by 17.08 : in order to flip it we should take 17.08/2=8.54 points to Obama and give them to McCain. Obama won 57.34% in Washington so for Washington to be tied he should get less than 52.87-8.54=44.33. So, A Democrat getting under 44% of the Vote Nationwide should lose the state. That's not a neglectable difference, as the last democrat to win less than 44% of the vote in a situation where no strong independent was running is... Walter Mondale in 1984.

[Ogre Mage]

As for the topic of this thread, the answer is no, at least not at the Presidential level.  Washington is not a swing state in Presidential Politics.  Bush I could not win the state in 1988 in spite of a convincing victory overall and since then no one has come remotely close.  The swing voters I mentioned may be swinging to the GOP at the current moment but there is no evidence that this is permanent.  They have swung before and will again.  The Republican candidate in 2012 may very well have a better showing than McCain, but in terms of winning the state, it would take a Nixon/McGovern 1972 or Reagan/Mondale 1984 scenario, as others have suggested.

I Disagree--The State as a whole is only D + 4, which is by no means insurmountable for a Republican.  A 1992-style win or even an 1988-style one would probably swing the state Atlas Blue today.

1988
Washington:  Dukakis 50.05%  Bush 48.46%
National:  Dukakis  45.65%  Bush 53.37%

1992
Washington:  Clinton 43.41%  Bush 31.97%
National:  Clinton 43.01%  Bush 37.45%

1996
Washington:  Clinton 49.84%  Dole  37.30%
National:  Clinton 49.23%  Dole 40.72%

2000
Washington:  Gore 50.13%  Bush 44.56%
National:  Gore 48.38%  Bush 47.87%

2004
Washington:  Kerry 52.82%  Bush 45.64%
National:  Kerry 48.27%  Bush 50.73%

2008
Washington:  Obama 57.34%  McCain 40.26%
National:  Obama 52.87%  McCain 45.60%

It is very clear by looking at the performance of the Democratic Presidential candidates in Washington over time what has happened.  If anything, their numbers have gotten stronger with each election.  Note that 1994 was the "Republican Revolution" and 2002 & 2004 were pretty good elections for the GOP.  Yet look at the results of the 1996 and 2004 Presidential elections in Washington state.  It would be foolish to base Obama's 2012 chances in The Evergreen State on the 2010 elections.

Much of the speculation in this thread is wishful thinking.

[DS0816]

Now, with more suburban voters returning the the GOP, is it possible that in 2012 a republican would win Washington?

No.

[DS0816]

Much of the speculation in this thread is wishful thinking.

Just like with the thread on Republicans having a chance to carry New Jersey in a presidential election. What those people — who believe — aren't considering is the common link. The likemindedness in voting patterns in presidential elections. Next time a Republican carries N.J., he'll also carry Wash. And Pennsylvania. And Michigan. And Connecticut. And Maine. And …

Reason Team Red (nationally recognized color) lost Wash. in 1988 and N.J. in 1992 (and hasn't won in them or much or all of the northeast, upper-midwest, and pacific rim ever since) is — no drumroll necessary! — the Republican party's platform.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Much of the speculation in this thread is wishful thinking.

Just like with the thread on Republicans having a chance to carry New Jersey in a presidential election. What those people — who believe — aren't considering is the common link. The likemindedness in voting patterns in presidential elections. Next time a Republican carries N.J., he'll also carry Wash. And Pennsylvania. And Michigan. And Connecticut. And Maine. And …

[Хahar 🤔]

I'm not sure how a map from 1960 is relevant here.

[Joe Republic]

I'm not sure how a map from 1960 is relevant here.

It's 1968.


(Yes!  Xahar finally gets corrected on something! )

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

I'm not sure how a map from 1960 is relevant here.

Just addressing this theory that "State X is bound by destiny to forever vote with State Y and Z."

As for the OP in question, doubtful - such a realignment would take a decade.

[Хahar 🤔]

I'm not sure how a map from 1960 is relevant here.

It's 1968.


(Yes!  Xahar finally gets corrected on something! )

I knew that, and I was thinking of Hubert Humphrey when I posted this, and I guess my finger must have pressed the wrong key.

[DS0816]

I'm not sure how a map from 1960 is relevant here.

Just addressing this theory that "State X is bound by destiny to forever vote with State Y and Z."

Your concerns about presumptions are important. Taking Idaho and Wyoming as examples: Both have voted the same in every election since 1904 with exception of 1944. In 2008, John McCain carried Wyo. by 32.24% and Ida. by 25.30%. So, in light of your remark ["Just addressing this theory that 'State X is bound by destiny to forever vote with State Y and Z'."], which one of these two states do you believe [may or will] flip from the 2008 Republican to 2012 Democratic column?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Much of the speculation in this thread is wishful thinking.

Just like with the thread on Republicans having a chance to carry New Jersey in a presidential election. What those people — who believe — aren't considering is the common link. The likemindedness in voting patterns in presidential elections. Next time a Republican carries N.J., he'll also carry Wash. And Pennsylvania. And Michigan. And Connecticut. And Maine. And …

You know what "next time" means ? (hint : 1968 doesn't fit in this category).

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

I'm not sure how a map from 1960 is relevant here.

Just addressing this theory that "State X is bound by destiny to forever vote with State Y and Z."

Your concerns about presumptions are important. Taking Idaho and Wyoming as examples: Both have voted the same in every election since 1904 with exception of 1944. In 2008, John McCain carried Wyo. by 32.24% and Ida. by 25.30%. So, in light of your remark ["Just addressing this theory that 'State X is bound by destiny to forever vote with State Y and Z'."], which one of these two states do you believe [may or will] flip from the 2008 Republican to 2012 Democratic column?

Wyoming.

[Skill and Chance]

I'm not sure how a map from 1960 is relevant here.

Just addressing this theory that "State X is bound by destiny to forever vote with State Y and Z."

Your concerns about presumptions are important. Taking Idaho and Wyoming as examples: Both have voted the same in every election since 1904 with exception of 1944. In 2008, John McCain carried Wyo. by 32.24% and Ida. by 25.30%. So, in light of your remark ["Just addressing this theory that 'State X is bound by destiny to forever vote with State Y and Z'."], which one of these two states do you believe [may or will] flip from the 2008 Republican to 2012 Democratic column?

Wyoming.

Brian Schweitzer vs. extreme social conservative in 2016 might make ID and WY toss-ups.  That is about the only scenario in which the D's would have a chance in hell at them.

[Skill and Chance]

I'm not sure how a map from 1960 is relevant here.

Just addressing this theory that "State X is bound by destiny to forever vote with State Y and Z."

Your concerns about presumptions are important. Taking Idaho and Wyoming as examples: Both have voted the same in every election since 1904 with exception of 1944. In 2008, John McCain carried Wyo. by 32.24% and Ida. by 25.30%. So, in light of your remark ["Just addressing this theory that 'State X is bound by destiny to forever vote with State Y and Z'."], which one of these two states do you believe [may or will] flip from the 2008 Republican to 2012 Democratic column?

Wyoming.