By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - US Presidential Election - Monitoring Swing States

JRPGfan on 13 October 2016
Shadow1980 said:

From the way things look right now, I think the electoral map will look like 2008's, except with Iowa and NC switching places:

Of course, if Trump's numbers keep heading south, Iowa could end up becoming blue again, and Arizona could flip. Georgia will probably still remain red, but by a far narrower margin than it has since the South became a Republican stronghold.

Just from looking at poles, Arizona might go blue.

But yeah I think its going to end up something like what you posted.



Around the Network
Nymeria on 13 October 2016
Shadow1980 said:

From the way things look right now, I think the electoral map will look like 2008's, except with Iowa and NC switching places:

 

Of course, if Trump's numbers keep heading south, Iowa could end up becoming blue again, and Arizona could flip. Georgia will probably still remain red, but by a far narrower margin than it has since the South became a Republican stronghold.

2008 saw Iowa, North Carolina, and even Indiana go blue. 2012 saw North Carolina and Indiana go red while Iowa stayed blue.

The south east is fascinating because for decades was considered solid red, but now Virginia is light blue and North Carolina is a swing state.  If this trend holds the "solid south" will no longer be a bedrock forcing republicans to look to the midwest as most likely replacement.

Arizona has been the hold out in the southwest as New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado have shifted blue.  Not sure this election will see it swing, but it is in play and will make coming cycles interesting to monitor.



Nymeria on 13 October 2016
outlawauron said:
Miguel_Zorro said:

The problem Trump has at this point is that states like Georgia are not supposed to be swing states.

Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

 

But it isn't. The notion that Georgia will be blue.

I realize this is an older post, but at no point will Georgia be blue. At least, not before Louisiana and both Carolinas.

Based on current data least likely to go blue would be Wyoming +29, least likely to go red is DC +63 to blue.

Georgia right now +2.5 to the red, compared to Louisiana +12 and South Carolina's +6.



outlawauron on 13 October 2016
Nymeria said:
outlawauron said:

But it isn't. The notion that Georgia will be blue.

I realize this is an older post, but at no point will Georgia be blue. At least, not before Louisiana and both Carolinas.

Based on current data least likely to go blue would be Wyoming +29, least likely to go red is DC +63 to blue.

Georgia right now +2.5 to the red, compared to Louisiana +12 and South Carolina's +6.

Louisiana is becoming more progressive. Democrats are doing better each election and Louisiana elected a Democratic governor in a election that wasn't close at all. Hillary Clinton winning will likely erode some of that progress though.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

pokoko on 13 October 2016

Interesting to watch North Carolina transition into a swing state. I remember when there were only pockets of Democrats scattered here and there.

Of course, I think some of it has to do with Trump alienating some of the older Christian base. He's not a candidate many of them want. The Republican party is splintering before our eyes.



Around the Network
Nymeria on 25 October 2016

The debates are over and now just a couple weeks away and think the outcome looks pretty well set.

Clinton has roughly a 90% chance of winning now given all the aggregate polling data across the states. In every swing state she is competitive with a chance to sweep every one (Iowa and Ohio being tightest races) not being unthinkable.

Trump's outlook is pretty bleak, essentially in the next week (keep in mind early voting is already occurring) something massive has to happen to move so many states enough points to give him a path to 270. Instead of pushing into Pennsylvania or Michigan, much of the discussion has been holding onto Arizona, Georgia, or even Texas or Utah.

My final map has Clinton winning comfortably electorally even if some of these such as Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio will be close. This total puts her between Obama's 2008 and 2012 victories.



Final predictions before election day?

 



Nymeria on 25 October 2016
Bandorr said:
I think it is fascinating 538 has Texas as a swing state.
If democrats get California and Texas I think the elections would be over before they even began.

The demographics are there for the next several cycles to make Texas in play.  If the Democrats can become the dominant party of hispanic community could make the southwest be blue the way the northeast and west coast have been.

My guess is if the Republicans lose in a shocking result there the party has to come to terms finally with adjusting rhetoric on immigration.  Of course, they discusse dit before, but come primary season their base could demand more of what 2016 gave them.



binary solo on 25 October 2016

I think the biggest point of interest is Utah possibly going 3rd party (or rather alt-Republican really). That hurts Trump of course since Utah is a state the Republican candidate can usually take to the bank. It does create the theoretical possibility of no one getting to 271, which you would think might cause the president to be determined by popular vote winner. But it turns out congress gets to decide. Which, even if you think congress will be one your side this time around, is something you should actually be concerned about, since congress is completely free to select a president that failed to get the most electoral college votes and failed to win the national popular vote. i.e. completely undermine democracy.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

Nymeria on 26 October 2016
binary solo said:
I think the biggest point of interest is Utah possibly going 3rd party (or rather alt-Republican really). That hurts Trump of course since Utah is a state the Republican candidate can usually take to the bank. It does create the theoretical possibility of no one getting to 271, which you would think might cause the president to be determined by popular vote winner. But it turns out congress gets to decide. Which, even if you think congress will be one your side this time around, is something you should actually be concerned about, since congress is completely free to select a president that failed to get the most electoral college votes and failed to win the national popular vote. i.e. completely undermine democracy.

Happened to Andrew Jackson and how we got President John Quincy Adams.

I don't see that happening here as even if Utah goes to third party it hurts Trump more than it causes concern for Clinton to get to 270.  



Nymeria on 27 October 2016

That is an awesome map Shadow1980, love the various sliders to project future elections.

I tend to agree on demographic shifts and how party reinvention needs to happen in most countries ever 40-50 years to remain relevant. I am still not sure 2016 will be that soul search year as so many think it is a Trump problem rather than a party one. I think if they get a standard republican in 2020 and still lose (marking 4 consecutive presidential losses) then the reality will hit home.

Going to be an interesting couple of cycles and you touched on two major aspects of young whites and the hispanic community. Failure to get significant numbers in both of these is disaster for a major party going to 2020 and beyond.