Democrats dominate electoral college with 'Blue Wall' of states

[ChrisFromNJ]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2009/01/democrats-domin.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Blue Wall - I like it. It does seem to be that the Democrats have built a more stable coalition over the last 20 years.

[ChrisFromNJ]

Here is the article from the National Journal.

http://i.usatoday.net/news/TheOval/National-Journal-1-16-2009.pdf

[Purple State]

Just need to grab two swing states then? Or Florida? Looks pretty do-able I would say. Missouri and Virginia look like good targets. Colorado, Arizona, Ohio, North Carolina, the list goes on. Good news here.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Its not suprising considering that until January 20, 2009 the Democrats have only been in the White House for 8 of the last 28 years.  So, the country, and especially these states, have had a good chance to get sick and tired of Republican rule, as was made evident in the 2006 and 2008 elections.  I believe if the Democrats are able to enjoy the same kind of dominance of the White House in the next three decades, we might see a "Red Wall" start building.

As most of you are aware there is a political pendulum that swings every so often one way or the other, and right now, the pendulum is on the left side.  This means good news for the Democrats, and the pendulum has been trending left really ever since President Bush began his second term four years ago.  I believe that while the Democrats are enjoying political and electoral success right now, that the pendulum will eventually swing back to the right and the Republicans will rise back to enjoy electoral success of their own.

[bhouston79]

Just for the sake of comparison, here's a map with the states that have voted Democratic all five times in blue and the states that have voted Republican all five times in red.  All states that have voted for both major parties at least once during the past five Presidential elections are in grey:

As you can see, the Democrats hold a 248 to 96 advantage in the electoral college among states that have voted for the same major party during the past five Presidential elections.  If this advantage continues, it means that Republicans will have to win at least 16 or 17 of the 19 single swing states in order to win future Presidential elections, while the Democrats will only need 2 or 3 of the 19 swing states.  That's an incredible advantage.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Not surprising at all and we have talked about this many times before.  When the GOP divides the country into real and ...unreal America, they forget that "unreal" America has most of the population.  There already is a red wall, but it's much smaller than the blue one.  I honstley don't see any of the blue states turning red anytime soon.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Just for the sake of comparison, here's a map with the states that have voted Democratic all five times in blue and the states that have voted Republican all five times in red.  All states that have voted for both major parties at least once during the past five Presidential elections are in grey:

As you can see, the Democrats hold a 248 to 96 advantage in the electoral college among states that have voted for the same major party during the past five Presidential elections.  If this advantage continues, it means that Republicans will have to win at least 16 or 17 of the 19 single swing states in order to win future Presidential elections, while the Democrats will only need 2 or 3 of the 19 swing states.  That's an incredible advantage.

Switch the colors and you're golden!!

[Associate Justice PiT]

Just for the sake of comparison, here's a map with the states that have voted Democratic all five times in blue and the states that have voted Republican all five times in red.  All states that have voted for both major parties at least once during the past five Presidential elections are in grey:

As you can see, the Democrats hold a 248 to 96 advantage in the electoral college among states that have voted for the same major party during the past five Presidential elections.  If this advantage continues, it means that Republicans will have to win at least 16 or 17 of the 19 single swing states in order to win future Presidential elections, while the Democrats will only need 2 or 3 of the 19 swing states.  That's an incredible advantage.

     Only problem with that map I can see is that some of the gray states were competitive in the 90s, but are not anymore. LA, for example, was won comfortably by Clinton, but cannot be won by any Democrat running for president today.

[Smid]

Just for the sake of comparison, here's a map with the states that have voted Democratic all five times in blue and the states that have voted Republican all five times in red.  All states that have voted for both major parties at least once during the past five Presidential elections are in grey:

As you can see, the Democrats hold a 248 to 96 advantage in the electoral college among states that have voted for the same major party during the past five Presidential elections.  If this advantage continues, it means that Republicans will have to win at least 16 or 17 of the 19 single swing states in order to win future Presidential elections, while the Democrats will only need 2 or 3 of the 19 swing states.  That's an incredible advantage.

     Only problem with that map I can see is that some of the gray states were competitive in the 90s, but are not anymore. LA, for example, was won comfortably by Clinton, but cannot be won by any Democrat running for president today.

This is the map weighted for number of times a party has won the state.

States which have been perfect bellweather states over the past five elections have been left as "tossup." States shaded >90% have gone exclusively to one party or the other over the past five elections. States shaded >50% have gone four of the last five times to one party or the other. States shaded >30% have gone to the that particular party once more than the country as a whole.

The breakdown becomes:

264 EVs Democrat
249 EVs Republican.

[Smid]

Or I guess the other way to look at it would be to look at the past six elections, since each party has won three of the past six elections.

This is the map showing states that have gone one party or the other in every single one of the past six elections:

Republicans 95 EVs
Democrats 92 EVs

And here is the version showing how often the states have been won by particular parties. "Tossup" still shows a perfect bellweather state across the last six elections. There is one independent seat - won equally by both parties, however the three wins and three losses are independent of the result in the rest of the country. >90% shows the state has been won 6/6 times, >50% shows the state has been won 5/6 times, >30% shows the state has been won 4/6 times.

Democrats 264 EVs
Republicans 244 EVs

Basically, the fact that this article looks at five elections without factoring in the actual winner of those five elections provides an inbuilt bias in favour of the Democrats. If this same article had been written after the 2004 election, Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina plus a Nebraskan congressional district would have been added to the Republican column, while California, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont and Maine would have been all dropped from the Democrat column, to show the Republicans leading with 135 EV compared to the Democrats' 92 EVs. If it was written right after the 2000 election, it would have blown out to Republicans having 135 EVs, more than 10 times the 13 EVs in the Democrats' column!

[Purple State]

What is interesting about the first of your maps, Smid, is that if you split the two bellwether states you can send the vote to the House. Just something that has me on the edge of my seat. That would be a fun outcome.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Once you factor in changes from reapportionment, the red and blue walls will differ by only a couple of EV's at most come 2012.

[anvi]

The "blue wall" that Brownstein talks about does represent a large number of electoral votes, and for the time being these states do represent a powerful electoral vote base for national Democratic candidates.  But these things are never stable.  Remeber the "lock" the Republican party always used to claim on the electoral college because of their "ownership" of California in every election from 1952-60 (3 elections) and then again from '68-88 (6 elections)?  Michigan was also a strong Republican state from 1972-1988 (5 elections).  These state blocks that for a time are owned by one party always change based on demographic shifts and changes in voter identification given the viscisitudes of politics.  It seems to me that the one thing Obama's election proved was precisely that nothing on the electoral map can be taken for granted.

[Lunar]

Appalachia isn't the same as it was in 1992 with Clinton, this way of measuring a "wall" is retarded



Also, the Democrats have had three strong victories in rapidly changing coalitions (dropping Upper South poor whites and gaining moderate suburbs) while the Republicans have had two one-state narrow wins on the presidential level.  That affects things.

[Mr. Morden]

A whopping 21 states have gone to the GOP for six straight presidential elections (from 1968-1988), while only DC has gone to the Dems in all six of those same elections.  Therefore, the GOP has an enormous structural advantage, and can expect to clean up in the 1992 presidential election, and for many decades to come.

Oh wait....no, I guess that's not how it works.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

While I'm sure that this article will seem amusing if we had a GOP landslide in 2012 or 2016, I think the value of it is to point out rather disturbing trends about the electorate for Republican candidates.

If we are narrowing our base and narrowing our ability to outreach, our voter base and numbers of votes decrease.... imagine that!

[memphis]

Just for the sake of comparison, here's a map with the states that have voted Democratic all five times in blue and the states that have voted Republican all five times in red.  All states that have voted for both major parties at least once during the past five Presidential elections are in grey:

As you can see, the Democrats hold a 248 to 96 advantage in the electoral college among states that have voted for the same major party during the past five Presidential elections.  If this advantage continues, it means that Republicans will have to win at least 16 or 17 of the 19 single swing states in order to win future Presidential elections, while the Democrats will only need 2 or 3 of the 19 swing states.  That's an incredible advantage.

You need to take the Nrebraska Congressional seat that Obama won out of the "red wall."
Also, I am awaiting Phil's aneurism upon reading that Pennsylvania is a reliably Dem state.

[minionofmidas]

What's it look like (the original map and Smid's maps) if we normalize for national margin?

[Person Man]

Most likely, this means  it is more likely than not that in the majority of the time for the next 20 years, there will be a D prez. Beyond that, it really doesn't mean anything.

[Matt Damon™]

I'd remove California from the dem wall for the next 10-20 years.

[ChrisFromNJ]

I'd remove California from the dem wall for the next 10-20 years.

Why is that?

[Smid]

I'd remove California from the dem wall for the next 10-20 years.

Depending on the car industry, Michigan may move towards the Republicans (if industry shuts down and workers move to other industrial states to look for work). That may have an impact on potentially Ohio and/or Pennsylvania.

What's it look like (the original map and Smid's maps) if we normalize for national margin?

I thought a little about that, but it was too close to the end of the day and so I just didn't have time to do that. Depending on how busy my day gets (looking pretty quiet at this stage, and very quiet if the last couple of days is anything to go by...) I might try rejigging my maps to factor that in. My aim at the time was more to show that when you take five elections, and three of them were relatively strong wins for one party and the other two were relatively weak wins for the other party, the map can becomes skewed.

You need to take the Nrebraska Congressional seat that Obama won out of the "red wall."

I know it's addressed to him, but I factored it out of mine (and then subsequently realised I'd left it out when I mentioned a comparable map after the 2000 and 2004 elections and had to factor it back in).

While I'm sure that this article will seem amusing if we had a GOP landslide in 2012 or 2016, I think the value of it is to point out rather disturbing trends about the electorate for Republican candidates.

If we are narrowing our base and narrowing our ability to outreach, our voter base and numbers of votes decrease.... imagine that!

It might be interesting to prepare a chart of the margin of victory for the winning candidate to see a rise/decline/no real change in Republican/Democrat strength over time.

[Marokai Backbeat]

While I'm sure that this article will seem amusing if we had a GOP landslide in 2012 or 2016

And when the aliens invade in December 2012 and we realize the truth was really out there then...

Wait a minute!

[pbrower2a]

Just for the sake of comparison, here's a map with the states that have voted Democratic all five times in blue and the states that have voted Republican all five times in red.  All states that have voted for both major parties at least once during the past five Presidential elections are in grey:

As you can see, the Democrats hold a 248 to 95 advantage in the electoral college among states that have voted for the same major party during the past five Presidential elections.  If this advantage continues, it means that Republicans will have to win at least 16 or 17 of the 19 single swing states in order to win future Presidential elections, while the Democrats will only need 2 or 3 of the 19 swing states.  That's an incredible advantage.

Note: I have colored NE-02 gray to reflect that it voted for Obama.

That looks like a huge cultural divide, and the States which have voted consistently Democratic are clustered in the Northeast, Great Lakes, and the Pacific Coast. Those are the most secular states in America, the ones in which religion is weak or in which religious bodies such as the Roman Catholic Church (very strong in those regions) believe that economic equity is a desirable end instead of a diversion from godliness.  It would take only 22 electoral votes outside the "Blue Wall" (note that Leip's atlas has the old  "Red=Democrats, Blue=Republicans" divide). New Hampshire, Iowa, and New Mexico barely went for Dubya once, and they are likely to be out of reach for some time. Color them "green" to recognize how difficult those two states are to flip Republican.


I have to add Indiana back to the "Red firewall" because it barely went for Obama once, and that suggests that no Democrat can ever win Indiana in a close nationwide race even if the Democrat is from the region, actively campaigns in Indiana, and is an unusually strong candidate in a very-well-run race. Obama is from Illinois; he is an outstanding candidate in his political skills; he actively campaigned in Indiana; he had a political campaign of unusual competence in organization; Obama won the 2008 election by a huge margin, and he still won Indiana by a thin margin. That shows how remarkable Obama's win in Indiana was, and that any other Democrat would have had little chance of winning Indiana unless the Republican opponent is cast as an extremist (like Goldwater). Indiana is still more Republican-leaning than the nation as a whole, if less blatantly so than it used to be... but that may say more about Barack Obama than about Indiana. Bill Clinton, a savvy campaigner, lost Indiana twice despite every states surrounding it voting for Clinton, and that it gave George W. Bush a twenty-point margin in 2004 suggests that 2008 in Indiana is an anomaly.

NE-02 belongs in this category, too. Obama won North Carolina by a margin less than the total votes of the Libertarian candidate Bob Barr whose votes came from people who ordinarily don't vote for liberal Democrats.  If the 2012 election is a replication of 2008, then it would not be unlikely for Obama to lose North Carolina and win Missouri (where McCain won by a margin of votes smaller than the votes that Ralph Nader got, and Ralph Nader doesn't usually siphon off votes from  conservative Republican candidates. So color Indiana, North Carolina, and NE-02 yellow.

Because Kentucky and Georgia both voted for Bill Clinton twice, and only in blowouts, and were not close in 2008, Arkansas voted for Clinton twice as a favorite son and went firmly Republican in 2008, Tennessee went to Clinton twice because Al Gore was from Tennessee... consider them part of the GOP firewall. Louisiana and West Virginia have long been drifting toward the GOP. These states can all go to Obama in 2012, but if they do, they go to him in a landslide. I think that Arizona is more likely than Indiana to go to Obama in 2012, and that Missouri is more likely than North Carolina to go to Obama in 2012.  I can't consider Missouri part of any Red Wall because it was close in 2000, 2004, and 2008 and voted for Clinton twice.

Nevada, in contrast could be approaching the the Blue Firewall should its double-digit win for Obama be significant. Ask me in 2012 whether Nevada is a political suburb of California. 
Virginia voted for a Democratic candidate for President for the first time since 1964, but it was nowhere near being as close as Indiana, so it is still gray, as is Missouri: 

and the Blue Wall becomes 262 electoral votes, and the Red Wall becomes 160.  That's before reapportionment, which will favor States in the remaining 'yellow' and 'red (but blue-colored)' zones. Obama will NOT win Indiana or North Carolina in a close nationwide race in 2012; he can win Indiana -- barely -- only in a landslide, as in 2008.  Should the Nebraska state legislature revert to a winner-take-all system for 2012, then Obama can forget getting any electoral votes from Nebraska. Obama wins two or more of these states only in a landslide as he did in 2008.

In 2000, a mere 538 votes finally separated Gore and George W. Bush in Florida -- and much else. In 2004, electoral shenanigans may have ensured a re-election of George W. Bush through some political hacks "delivering" Ohio with methods other than active campaigning. Florida and Ohio belong in their own category:

Either Ohio or Florida seals the deal for the Democratic candidate for President, and you can color them white to show their significance. Nobody can say the same of any other State (except Texas, assumed to be in the Red wall, and a pick-up for Democrats in 2012 only in an Eisenhower-scale landslide!) in view of likely re-apportionment of House seats -- not Colorado, Arizona, Indiana, Missouri, Virginia, North Carolina, or Georgia. Any combination of two of those states wins the election for the Democratic candidate for President.

If there is any generalization to make about culture and voting, it is on religion: where the combination of Judaism, Roman Catholicism, and African-American churches is stronger than the combination of Mormonism and (white) Protestant fundamentalism, the Democrats have an advantage. The Roman Catholic Church would love to ban abortion, but its leaders recognize the political futility of aligning itself on one issue with religious bodies that disagree with the RCC on so many other issues (peace, death penalty, workers' rights, economic equity) for one issue. (The RCC thus relies heavily upon moral suasion to deter abortion, and that is more effective). Protestant fundamentalism among whites is weakening in America on the whole because youth are turning away from it, but the Roman Catholic Church isn't weakening. That explains why Colorado and Nevada, with fast-growing Latino populations went Democratic in 2008 and why the GOP cannot assume Arizona -- or even Texas -- as its 'property' in 2012.

The LDS is not weakening at all, and areas in which it has greater membership than the Roman Catholic Church (which excludes California, Nevada, and Colorado) the GOP is going strong and will likely to remain strong. But where white Protestant Fundamentalism has weakened first, GOP dominance has weakened severely, explaining how Obama could win not only Ohio and Indiana where white Protestant Fundamentalists made the difference in statewide elections, but also made inroads into the South -- Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida.

With even normal achievement as President, Obama stands to win in a landslide in 2012, one so big that it could include Texas, from demographic shifts alone -- the expansion of the Latino electorate (it is young) and the weakening of white Protestant Fundamentalism that has been losing youth who are more secular in cultural and economic values than their parents.

   

  

 

 

[Smid]

Pbrower2a, I don't know who you are, but you write very well and provide very good analysis.