Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Does electoral map really favor Democrats?

TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 7:07:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I do not think so. To start, let's try and rule out any state that has no chance of flipping, barring some historic landslide. I'm going to use the Cook PVI here. The Cook PVI weighs a state's partisanship relative to the national vote. For example, a state with a PVI of R+3 is three percentage points more Republican than the national average (which would mean a hypothetical Democrat would likely need to win by at around three percentage points to win the state). I will discount any state that has a PVI of 5 or more (Washington and Oregon are D+5, while Indiana and Missouri are examples of R+5 states). These states could flip (like Indiana did in 2008), but would require a landslide to do so. This leaves us with thirteen swing states (and two congressional districts) with 163 electoral votes up for grabs (Republicans have a 193-182 electoral lead). By PVI, they are:
*D+4 - Michigan (16), New Mexico (5)
*D+2 - Minnesota (10), Nevada (5), Wisconsin (10), Maine's 2nd district (1)
*D+1 - Colorado (9), Iowa (6), New Hampshire (4), Pennsylvania (20)
*EVEN - Virginia (13)
*R+1 - Ohio (18)
*R+2 - Florida (27)
*R+3 - North Carolina (15)
*R+4 - Nebraska's 2nd district (1)

Going by PVI, the easiest path for Republicans is to win NE-2, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia (266 electoral votes), and then any one of the D+1 states. An alternative (and possibly easier) scenario would be to win NE-2, NC, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania (272 electoral votes). For Democrats, the easiest path would be to win all 9 Democrat-winning swing states (272 electoral votes). The next-easiest scenario would be to win Virginia as well as every Democrat-leaning swing state but the D+1 states of Iowa and New Hampshire (272 electoral votes).

In a generic election, then, the map is not favorable to either side. I would actually argue it looks slightly worse for Democrats. For instance, Democrats hype that Virginia is now a swing state. However, Republicans are gaining ground in Pennsylvania. Democrats have maxed out Philadelphia proper (won 85% in 2012) and the suburbs, but are rapidly losing ground in the rural areas and even lost the Pittsburgh metro in 2012. As shown above, a Republican win in Pennsylvania would more than make up for losing Virginia.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 11:42:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Don't worry m8 if the republicans aren't dumb and choose Kaisch, Rubio, or Bush they have a chance with Latinos (particularly Bush and Rubio), and NM may flip. And you know which side I am voting for XD
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 8:01:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 11:42:10 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Don't worry m8 if the republicans aren't dumb and choose Kaisch, Rubio, or Bush they have a chance with Latinos (particularly Bush and Rubio), and NM may flip. And you know which side I am voting for XD

Rubio in particular would certainly put NM in play and probably would push Colorado and Florida a few percentage points right. Florida especially is a big deal, since that's the one state Democrats would be able to make up losing PA with.

I think there are also benefits to choosing Scott Walker. He's more conservative than Kasich but just as electable, and could feasibly draw strong support from the Midwest. If Michigan and Minnesota are seriously contested, that means less resources to defend PA with.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 12:18:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 8:01:44 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 4/24/2015 11:42:10 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Don't worry m8 if the republicans aren't dumb and choose Kaisch, Rubio, or Bush they have a chance with Latinos (particularly Bush and Rubio), and NM may flip. And you know which side I am voting for XD

Rubio in particular would certainly put NM in play and probably would push Colorado and Florida a few percentage points right. Florida especially is a big deal, since that's the one state Democrats would be able to make up losing PA with.

I think there are also benefits to choosing Scott Walker. He's more conservative than Kasich but just as electable, and could feasibly draw strong support from the Midwest. If Michigan and Minnesota are seriously contested, that means less resources to defend PA with.

No he isn't. Walker is terrible with the media. He won't answer basic questions like "do you believe in evolution". He seems electable now, but unless he becomes good at speaking to the media, he is going to be a terrible choice. Plus all he has done is fight the unions--and even in Wisconsin his approval rating has taken a dive. I think Kaisch, if you want electability, is the guy you want. But I like Rubio the most :P
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 12:41:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 8:01:44 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 4/24/2015 11:42:10 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Don't worry m8 if the republicans aren't dumb and choose Kaisch, Rubio, or Bush they have a chance with Latinos (particularly Bush and Rubio), and NM may flip. And you know which side I am voting for XD

Rubio in particular would certainly put NM in play and probably would push Colorado and Florida a few percentage points right. Florida especially is a big deal, since that's the one state Democrats would be able to make up losing PA with.

I think there are also benefits to choosing Scott Walker. He's more conservative than Kasich but just as electable, and could feasibly draw strong support from the Midwest. If Michigan and Minnesota are seriously contested, that means less resources to defend PA with.

Walker also might have a chance in PA, due to his relative lightness on the social issues. People here are more or less annoyed by the constant focus on social issues by Republicans in the face of what many people see as actual problems.

He just needs a better PR guy, or some coaching, or something.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 2:14:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 12:41:39 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/25/2015 8:01:44 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 4/24/2015 11:42:10 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Don't worry m8 if the republicans aren't dumb and choose Kaisch, Rubio, or Bush they have a chance with Latinos (particularly Bush and Rubio), and NM may flip. And you know which side I am voting for XD

Rubio in particular would certainly put NM in play and probably would push Colorado and Florida a few percentage points right. Florida especially is a big deal, since that's the one state Democrats would be able to make up losing PA with.

I think there are also benefits to choosing Scott Walker. He's more conservative than Kasich but just as electable, and could feasibly draw strong support from the Midwest. If Michigan and Minnesota are seriously contested, that means less resources to defend PA with.

Walker also might have a chance in PA, due to his relative lightness on the social issues. People here are more or less annoyed by the constant focus on social issues by Republicans in the face of what many people see as actual problems.

That's exactly what I'm thinking. Walker is acceptable to social conservatives because he is conservative on most social issues. However, he does not campaign on gay marriage or abortion, he campaigns on economic issues. Social-focused elections can win in the south, but in the Northeast and midwest it detracts heavily. Republicans will win the south regardless, so why try to win by more there? Winning Pennsylvania and one Midwestern state (Wisconsin, Minnesota, or Michigan) would virtually guarantee a presidential win.

He just needs a better PR guy, or some coaching, or something.

I don't think he's doing too bad there. Most polls show him in the top three in the primary and about on par with the field in the general.