A lot of people say that Florida decided the 2000 Election, in the same way that they say that Ohio decided the 2004 Election. Certainly those states played a role, and the argument can be made that if things in those states had shaken out differently, so would the election, yet in actual fact there were other states which were just as critical, or more to the point, the 2008 campaign may be decided by the location of the key states this time around. It is important to look at every state as a possible win or loss. With that said, I do think we can look at the results of elections in the modern era and get a sense of what states will most likely be in play in 2008. By my calculations [which I will not go into here, except to observe that they are driven by election results and demographic trends], even the District of Columbia has only a 94% chance of landing in a certain fashion, and of the states no state shows greater than 80% chance of going a certain way. Sure, a candidate would like to hold the 80% share, but it does show that 'certainty' is a trap which the smart candidate will consider and avoid. Therefore, as a caveat before I go further, I would say I am using three shades of Red and Blue, and none of them absolute.
The deepest properties would be those states or that district which has gone for a certain party for at least the last 10 straight Presidential elections. For the Democrats, that would be the District of Columbia, worth 3 Electoral Votes (EV). For the Republicans, that would be the following states: Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, Wyoming, North Dakota, Kansas, Alaska, South Dakota, Indiana, Oklahoma, and Virginia. Those 11 states are worth 63 EV. Mathematically, that rather explains why Democrats who win Presidential races generally do not enjoy landslides.
(continued)
The next-strongest group would be those states which have generally or clearly favored a party over the last 15 elections, but which also have gone for that same party the last 5 Presidential Elections (or 4 of the last 5, with another election decided by 1% of the vote or less). For the Democrats, that list would be Massachusetts, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Minnesota, New York, Washington, Wisconsin, and Oregon. Those 8 states and 88 EV bring the Democrats up to 8 states, one district and 91 EV.
For the Republicans, that second list would be Texas, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and North Carolina. Those 5 states and 72 EV bring the Republicans up to 16 states and 135 EV, half of what they need to win the White House. They also keep the Republicans 44 electoral votes ahead of the Democrats at this point, with 26 states left to count.
The third-strongest group would be those states which have provided 50% or more of the popular vote in at least 9 of the last 15 Presidential Elections. For the Democrats, that list does not add a single state, but for the Republicans, that list adds the following states: Montana, Colorado, New Hampshire, and - oddly enough - Vermont! Those 4 states and 19 EV bring the Republican tally up to 20 states and 154 EV, and create a 63-vote lead for the Republicans with 22 states left to count.
OK, a 22-state field is still a large place, but we now have a true "starting position" for the race. Granted, even I find it unlikely to believe that New Hampshire and Vermont will go Red in 2008, so I will arbitrarily flip them Blue, and that gives us the following positions, regardless of the parties' nominees:
Democrats: 10 states plus DC, 98 EV: 172 EV still needed
Republicans: 18 states, 147 EV: 123 EV still needed
If we next consider states which went 4-out-of-the-last-5 for a party, here's what happens. The Democrats add Maryland, Connecticut, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Illinois, California, Michigan, New Jersey, Maine, and Iowa. Those 10 states and 160 EV bring the Democrats up to 20 states plus DC, and 258 EV, 14 EV needed to win.
For the Republicans, that condition adds Arizona and Georgia, 2 states and 25 EV. That brings the Republicans up to 20 states and 172 EV, or 98 EV needed to win with just 10 states left on the board.
Suddenly it looks like the Democrats have a commanding lead. Presuming we extend the last-5-election counter to allow for 3 of the last 5 with 1 under 1% margin, that puts Florida in the Republican tally, which I am inclined to do because of the positive ratings for Jeb Bush there, and the rotten efforts by the Democrats there. That raises the Republicans to 21 states and 199 EV, 71 EV away from a win with 9 states left to look at.
And that's your battlefield for 2008. Kentucky, Ohio, Louisiana, Nevada, Tennessee, New Mexico, Missouri, Arkansas, and West Virginia.
I can winnow that down some more by looking again the histories of those states:
Ohio: 10 of the last 15 elections went for the Republican, 4 for the Democrat. The Republican claimed 50%+ 8 times, the Democrat 1 time.
Tennessee: 8 of the last 15 elections went for the Republican, 5 for the Democrat. The Republican claimed 50%+ 6 times, the Democrat 2 times.
Kentucky: 9 of the last 15 elections went for the Republican, 5 for the Democrat. The Republican claimed 50%+ 8 times, the Democrat 3 times.
Those three states will go Republican, unless something happens which makes all the other histories unreliable. That brings the scoreboard up to this tally:
Democrat: 20 states plus DC, 258 EV, 14 EV needed to win
Republican: 24 states, 238 EV, 34 EV needed to win
Still At Stake:
Missouri (11 EV), 8-5 Republican in last 15, 3-2 Republican in last 5, 5-3 GOP 50%+
Louisiana (9 EV), 8-7 Republican in last 15, 3-2 Republican in last 5, 8-3 GOP 50%+
Arkansas (6 EV), 8-6 Democrat in last 15, 3-2 Republican in last 5, 7-5 Dem 50%+
Nevada (5 EV), 10-5 Republican in last 15, 3-2 Republican in last 5, 6-2 GOP 50%+
West Virginia (5 EV), 10-5 Democrat in last 15, 3-2 Democrat in last 5, 7-5 Dem 50%+
So, who can win those five states? That might decide it all.



Comments (7)
I would be wary of putting ... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Steve_in_Corona | January 31, 2007 2:38 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I would be wary of putting Ohio in the GOP column - despite history. I saw firsthand here in CA how quickly a GOP state, turned into a Democrat lock - and while I would not call Ohio a Dem lock certainly, I think the 2004 results (relatively close though not as close percentage wise as Dems who cry 'Diebold' believe) and the 2006 debacle prove that the GOP has some work to do here.
I also think that LA is a GOP lock for 2008, given the Katrina dislocation situation.
1. Posted by Steve_in_Corona | January 31, 2007 2:38 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 31, 2007 14:38
2. Posted by Charles_in_Texas | January 31, 2007 5:53 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
As for Lousiana, you may be correct. However, Huey Long taught Demoncrats how to steal creatively. I will bet you that all of those who left Louisiana will still be voted for the Demoncrats in Lousiana.
2. Posted by Charles_in_Texas | January 31, 2007 5:53 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 31, 2007 17:53
3. Posted by Scrapiron | January 31, 2007 8:26 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Neither Ohio nor Florida determined any election. They were both so inept at counting votes that they were the last state results to come in. Several other states could do the same it they had no pride and delayed to count through stupidity. Making you citizens look like retarded a**holes shouldn't be something to be proud of.
3. Posted by Scrapiron | January 31, 2007 8:26 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 31, 2007 20:26
4. Posted by Jim Addison | February 1, 2007 1:58 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Ohio is a battleground state, and has been for some time. Recent Republican successes there, by margins large and small, obscure the fact that no Republican has ever been elected President without it.
If a Republican wins without Ohio, we will know the political landscape has shifted significantly.
Arkansas and Louisiana have been inching towards the Republican side in fits and starts for decades. In the end, they will follow the rest of the region to the GOP - or whatever conservative party replaces it if it splits.
In both states, as well as Kentucky, Democratic strength is based on traditions. Time tends to erode such traditions.
The bottom line is the nation is divided fairly closely, and there is no reason to expect that will change rapidly.
4. Posted by Jim Addison | February 1, 2007 1:58 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 1, 2007 01:58
5. Posted by Ben Maller | February 1, 2007 4:15 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Very good analysis, but you left New Mexico off of your still at stake list.
I also think that specifically for New York, that if we end up with a Guilani vs Hilary race that NY would be in play.
Ben
5. Posted by Ben Maller | February 1, 2007 4:15 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 1, 2007 16:15
6. Posted by FreeKeys | February 1, 2007 8:43 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
So which candidate(s) has(have) enough name recognition and admiration in those battleground states to withstand the relentless MSM smear machine (which we just saw in overdrive for the '06 elections)?
6. Posted by FreeKeys | February 1, 2007 8:43 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 1, 2007 20:43
7. Posted by Jim Addison | February 2, 2007 5:04 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I think Guiliani puts New York in play no matter who the Democrats nominate. He might not win it - I wouldn't bet against it, since he rolled up convincing margins in the City twice, and the upstate is more favorable turf for the GOP - but he would force the Democrats to spend heavily in the most expensive media market in the world in order to hold it.
New Mexico is indeed in play, and is one of the few states which are nearly 50-50.
The fMSM smear machine is nothing new. The last Republican who got respect from the media was Eisenhower - in 1952. It's something we have to deal with in every election. The good news is that Old Media fortunes are falling fast. The NY Times Co. just posted a $40+ loss PER SHARE, mainly due to declining ad revenues from Boston, but they are seeing a general decline in ad sales and circulation, as are many large dailies.
7. Posted by Jim Addison | February 2, 2007 5:04 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 2, 2007 05:04