Analysis of "vulnerable" states in 2016 Presidential Election

[Dan Druff]

States Which Went Republican in 2012 and Will Definitely Stay That Way in 2016
(number listed after each state indicates # of points Romney won by in 2012)

Alabama (22)
Alaska (14)
Arkansas (24)
Idaho (32)
Indiana (11)
Kansas (22)
Kentucky (23)
Louisiana (17)
Mississippi (12)
Montana (14)
Nebraska (21)
North Dakota (20)
Oklahoma (33)
South Carolina (10)
South Dakota (18)
Tennessee (20)
Texas (16)
Utah (48)
West Virginia (27)
Wyoming (41)


States Which Went Republican in 2012 and Will Probably Stay That Way in 2016
Missouri (9)
Arizona (9)
Georgia (8)

States Which Went Republican in 2012 and Could Easily Flip in 2016
North Carolina (2)


States Which Went Democrat in 2012 and Definitely Will Stay That Way in 2016
California (23)
Connecticut (18)
Delaware (19)
DC (83)
Hawaii (43)
Illinois (17)
Maine (16)
Maryland (26)
Massachusetts (23)
New Jersey (18)
New York (28)
Oregon (12)
Rhode Island (27)
Vermont (36)
Washington (15)


States Which Went Democrat in 2012 and Will Probably Stay That Way in 2016
Michigan (9)
Minnesota (8)
Pennsylvania (5)
Wisconsin (7)
New Mexico (10)

States Which Went Democrat in 2012 and Could Easily Flip in 2016
Colorado (5)
Florida (1)
Iowa (5)
Nevada (7)
New Hampshire (5)
Ohio (3)
Virginia (4)


So as you can see above, Republicans are pretty safe regarding keeping all "Romney" states this time around, as all finished with a 9-point margin or more in 2012 (with the exception of North Carolina), and that was with the Republican candidate LOSING overall.

The Dems are vulnerable in 7 states, and maybe 8 if you count Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, it was only a 5-point victory, but I see those as a tough 5 points to crack, whereas in Nevada, the 7 point deficit can be made up more easily IMO.

For Republicans to win this time around, they need to:

1) Keep North Carolina (15 electoral votes)
2) Take Ohio and Florida (18 and 29 votes, respectively)
3) Pick up 17 more electoral votes from the remaining close states

That's basically what the election comes down to, unless there are some surprises such as Pennsylvania going Republican or Missouri going Democrat. Republicans have their usual outside shot at Michigan/Minnesota/Wisconsin, as is talked about every year, but I don't see it happening for them.

Republicans should really be targeting Virginia, which has 13 votes.

Simply carrying every Romney state from 2012, and then taking Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and New Hampshire will beat Hillary.

That isn't trivial, but it's also not far-fetched.

[Pooh]

Nice post. I think they will have an easier time taking PA but that's just me. Any way you can edit your post to show the electorials for each state?

[Pooh]

Also, didn't realize Georgia was that close last time. That state is usually automatic I thought.

[ToasterOven]

I don't think Michigan has voted Republican since 1988. I know it's still called a "swing state" but it isn't for presidential elections.

[patience]

It'll come down to a handful of counties in northern Virginia and Florida.

[jsearles22]

Anyone care to so eloquently explain why it's 2015 and we still are using the electoral college instead of a straight nationwide popular vote?

[Krypt]

It'll come down to a handful of counties in northern Virginia and Florida.

Those NoVa counties you're referring to (Fairfax and Loudon) are literally filled with government employees and contractors; I just can't see the republicans make any headway here. In fact, I'll wager up to 1k Virginia goes blue in 2016

[Dan Druff]

Anyone care to so eloquently explain why it's 2015 and we still are using the electoral college instead of a straight nationwide popular vote?

There are pluses and minuses with our current system.

One plus is that states with small populations don't get ignored by Presidential candidates. Without the electoral college system, it would be worth it for candidates to simply aim at large population centers and ignore rural areas.

Another reason to have the electoral college is because the US is actually more of a cooperative of 51 different, independent governments, so this winner-take-all system is basically each of these entities voting for who it wants as President. It is true that state government affects your life a lot more than federal government, though many don't realize that.

[Dan Druff]

I don't think Michigan has voted Republican since 1988. I know it's still called a "swing state" but it isn't for presidential elections.

I agree. Every time I hear the media talking about Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin being swing states, I laugh. There are even some LOL polls which show the Republican candidate leading in one or more of these states at some point, and then it never comes to pass in the actual election.

[JohnCommode]

I am in general agreement with you that the election is about 81 electoral votes as Hillary starts with 251 just by winning the Democratic nomination and needs just 19 of the 81 in play to get to 270. I disagree about North Carolina and New Hampshire. If North Carolina is really in play, then the election is a one sided Obama/Romney rerun. The Republican legislature and governor have made voting more restrictive to make the Democrats task more difficult. New Hampshire has become more and more a suburb of Boston and Democratic during presidential years. There is one wild card that might be available to Republicans in normally Blue presidential states like Michigan and Wisconsin. The Republicans have complete control of state government in both states and could change from a winner take all format to a congressional district format so that they come out of these states with some electoral votes. Michigan's governor has been resistant so far but Scott Walker could pull a stunt like this. I'm not sure if their is a cutoff deadline for this kind of action. The Republicans in Nebraska ended congressional district electoral voting because Obama carried the Omaha district vs McCain and got 1 electoral vote and Hillary would probably be competitive there. To my knowledge, Maine is the only state left with that system. A ticket of Rubio/Kasich might theoretically deliver both Ohio and Florida so Hillary would need 19 of the remaining 34 electoral votes to win. It's my understanding that Rubio is the favorite in the betting markets to win the nomination, unless that has changed recently, so such a ticket is not out of the realm of possibility.

[anonamoose]

Nice post. I think they will have an easier time taking PA but that's just me. Any way you can edit your post to show the electorials for each state?

Strongly disagree. The mass majority of PA's population is in Pittsburgh, Erie, Centre, and Philadelphia.

Erie will always be democrat. Everyone I know in Pittsburgh is very pro-Sanders right now and would vote for Hillary instead if they had to. Centre county is PSU and they will always vote democrat and Philadelphia always votes democrat. It would take a massive fuck up for the democrats to lose PA this election year.

[herbertstemple]

Florida, Georgia and North Carolina will all go GOP in 2016. The democrats and the n-words got rid of the Confederate Flag this year. That bill comes due next November. Expect to see lots of Mexicans headed to these 3 states till then.

[BCR]

Nice post. I think they will have an easier time taking PA but that's just me. Any way you can edit your post to show the electorials for each state?

Strongly disagree. The mass majority of PA's population is in Pittsburgh, Erie, Centre, and Philadelphia.

Erie will always be democrat. Everyone I know in Pittsburgh is very pro-Sanders right now and would vote for Hillary instead if they had to. Centre county is PSU and they will always vote democrat and Philadelphia always votes democrat. It would take a massive fuck up for the democrats to lose PA this election year.

Yeah, Pa is far safer blue than Ohio. The Dems have the north, but most of the population growth is Columbus suburbs, which are entirely red. It's hard to judge what kind of sway Kasich brings. He runs well, above 60%, in general approval, yet Trump/Carson beats him in early primary polls by a wide marginal . Hillary was really strong, even in a losing effort to Obama, winning the Ohio primary in '08. Kasich is like Rubio, polling 3rd and 4th in their home states to Trump/Carson, so it's hard to project with any certainty what kind of influence they hold. My gut tells me Rubio has little shot in Ohio or Pa. He polls like 6th in Ohio behind even Fiorina, and they are the least Hispanic states in the country.

[gut]

GOP still needs like...an actual candidate right? If they find one they might win.

[gut]

I think Rubio is the only legit one from the GOP, and once Trump is done with him via twitter and/or indy party running..... GOP has no chance. Why are we talking about this?

[garrett]

It always comes down to the 'swing' States.

OH/VA/FL/PA/NC/MN/NJ really are important as the swing States always are. An interesting Caveat on NJ a historically Blue State. A Trump/Christie ticket could actually swing N.J. from blue to red in this General election. NC and OH I can very well see voting red, which would really leave PA and VA as critical States to win. VA and PA off hand might be harder to move from Blue to red than the others but who knows.

As much as my gut tells me we will probably have a Republican President this time around. I am not sold on that because America has had such a liberal movement over the last decade, I think it will be a close coin flip as usual. Hillary has that name equity, in being a, Clinton. And ol' Bill was pretty beloved. Although he was President during some really slow times. No wars, no Al Qaeda (like today), no ISIS so i'm not one who is so sold on Bill being so great as he was fortunate to be President during very peaceful, and relatively slow times. Hillary is no Bill Clinton either.

I personally am middle of the road, lean right on Economic Policies, left on Social Freedoms. Truly middle of road type, can go either way depending on what issues I feel are most important during an election cycle, and then I vote based on who's policy works best fixing some of the more major issues the country has currently. I'm a registered Independent voter. I do not like the idea we have a two family 'quasi-dictatorship' of leaders, in the Clinton's and Bush's. A fresh perspective on everything imo isn't a bad thing. In that sense, my instinct is to look a different direction and I'm not a huge Hillary or Jeb fan necessarily because of the long time family ties to politics and Presidents.


I am probably more of a non-establishment type currently I guess, and think that idea today is not such a bad thing.

[IAmProfessionalTalk]

I think Rubio is the only legit one from the GOP, and once Trump is done with him via twitter and/or indy party running..... GOP has no chance. Why are we talking about this?

If I were Hillary and got to choose my opponent, I would take Rubio.

[ToasterOven]

I think Rubio is the only legit one from the GOP, and once Trump is done with him via twitter and/or indy party running..... GOP has no chance. Why are we talking about this?

If I were Hillary and got to choose my opponent, I would take Rubio.

I think they'd want Jeb most of all. All of the legacy stuff to be used against Hillary is gone. And Jeb will absolutely take the bait to defend GWB, reminding people what a shitshow his presidency was. But, this is probably the reason why Jeb is almost out of the race to begin with.

[IAmProfessionalTalk]

If I were Hillary and got to choose my opponent, I would take Rubio.

I think they'd want Jeb most of all. All of the legacy stuff to be used against Hillary is gone. And Jeb will absolutely take the bait to defend GWB, reminding people what a shitshow his presidency was. But, this is probably the reason why Jeb is almost out of the race to begin with.

They sure do make it difficult to decide who is the most terrible candidate.

[ToasterOven]

Every electorate is a little different. Assuming Hillary is the nominee, she will not get the same black turn out as Obama, but she will probably recover some old whites. The Clintons are popular with older white people, which will cut into the Republican base. Obviously, the Republicans will get around 2-5% of blacks, but they need to do better than Romney did with Latinos. And it's not looking too good for that.

So many predictions are based on previous electorates. The smart political operatives predict the next electorate and act accordingly. Republicans seem to be betting that they can mobilize whites for one more victory, so hostility towards Latinos actually helps them. I think it's a loser, but I guess we'll see.