Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-16-2019, 10:44 AM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,647

Which states do you think are purple states for the POTUS 2020 election?


Reading some of the comments in other threads has me a bit surprised as to which states are being considered purple states. Hereís whatís up for debate.

1. How do you define a purple state?

2. Which states do you think for that definition for the 2020 presidential election?

IMHO a purple state is one which has a fair chance, letís say at least 10 to20%, of going either way. I wouldnít count a state that is likely to be close but has little chance of going either way due to something like a highly polarized electorate. Hereís my list of states that I think will fit this definition for 2020.

First there is the upper Midwest states that gave Trump the victory in 2016. I have Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin on my list, to which Iíll add Minnesota. Iowa and Ohio are red in my book, with little likelihood of going blue.

In the western part of the country the only state that I think will be purple is Arizona. I doubt that Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico have any significant chance at going red.

On the east coast I think North Carolina will be a reddish leaning purple. Iíll put Florida on the purple list as well, but with the way the recent senate and gubernatorial went I think itís very reddish leaning. I think Virginia will stay firmly blue.

As far as all the other states I didnít mention, I think they will stay the same as they were in 2020.
  #2  
Old 03-16-2019, 11:32 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,240
Iowa and Ohio both went for Obama. You can't write off a state based on just one election.
  #3  
Old 03-16-2019, 12:12 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Iowa and Ohio both went for Obama. You can't write off a state based on just one election.
States like that are going to depend on how appealing the Democratic candidate is to rust-belt or agricultural voters. So which states are flippable is going to depend who the candidates are. And more than 5% of the vote in each state went to minor candidates. With a better alternative than Clinton was, they could be in reach.
  #4  
Old 03-16-2019, 12:23 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,346
Paraphrasing FlikTheBlue's post:
Purples:
Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Arizona, North Carolina, Florida.

Iowa and Ohio are red in my book, with little likelihood of going blue.
Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia have no significant chance at going red.
I've changed Nevada's color ó it's a toss-up state.

You ignore New Hampshire, very purple, perhaps because it has only 3 EVs. Maine is also dangerously close to Red, but because they split their EV's (1 - Blue 1st Dist, 1 - Red 2nd Dist, 2 - WTA), only 2 EVs are up for grabs.

Georgia is also turning purplish. The Dems might get Iowa or Ohio or Georgia but shouldn't bother with them much ó if they win one of these, they're winning a landslide anyway and didn't need them.
  #5  
Old 03-16-2019, 09:27 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,240
But a candidate who can't win rust belt or agricultural voters won't win, period. There are too many rust belt and agricultural states.
  #6  
Old 03-16-2019, 09:45 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,258
If Beto is the Democratic nominee, Texas goes purple.

All of the usual blue states that went Trump in 2020 will be purple, if not outright blue. Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Florida, etc.

North Carolina and Arizona will be purple too.
  #7  
Old 03-17-2019, 09:22 PM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,672
I dislike - though I don't want to fight the OP - the term 'purple' states. It makes the assumption that one shouldn't push for all states.

At a minimum, I'd prefer Howard Dean's 2006 fifty state strategy. Do some appearances in Arizona and Texas. Buy some ads aimed at Alaska and Arkansas. Any state where any SORT of argument can be made should get some attention. Even if it doesn't pay off now it'll build brand recognition for 2024 and the future.

Here's a list of states which went red in 2016 but were within 10 points. After the state name I'll give Hillary's loss percentage.

Arizona (3.5%)
Florida (1.2%)
Georgia (5.1%)
Iowa (9.4%)
Michigan (0.2%)
NE-2 (2.2%)
North Carolina (3.7%)
Ohio (8.1%)
Pennsylvania (0.7%)
Texas (9.0%)
Wisconsin (0.7%)

Sure, some are long shots. But you never move the needle if you don't try.

And wow, it really reinforces just how close it was in 2016.

23,000 votes in Wisconsin
55,000 votes in Pennsylvania
9,000 votes in Michigan

87,000 votes in three states. That's all it takes to change the world.
  #8  
Old 03-17-2019, 09:58 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,736
I'm optimistic that North Carolina will turn. We have a solid, charismatic, and competent Democratic governor in Cooper. Trump is underwater:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indyweek
Basically, were the election held today, Trump would be in trouble if he faced another old white guy, but he could crawl to victory if he faced Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Beto O’Rourke, or Cory Booker, though this likely owes to name recognition. The most important thing here is that Trump struggles to get above 46 percent.
And the blatant fraud in the ninth district isn't doing Republicans any favors.

I refuse to make any predictions about politics until the nation decrazifies itself; but NC doesn't look half bad.
  #9  
Old 03-18-2019, 07:55 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,230
I shade them like this:

Deep Red: AK ID MT ND SD NE KS OK TX AR LA MS AL KY TN SC WV 143
Pink: AZ IA MO IN GA 54
True Purple: MI WI PA OH FL NC 108
Baby blue: VA NV ME NH 27
Royal Loyal Blue: HI WA OR CO NM MN IL NY VT MA RI CT NJ DE DC MD 206

The pinks and baby blues are in play but have a slight edge for one party. One could argue IN is deep red but Obama carried it. GA nearly elected a black Democrat governor so I think the right D could win it.
  #10  
Old 03-18-2019, 08:04 AM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 29,809
Username / thread title combo!
  #11  
Old 03-18-2019, 04:18 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,740
Here's the list of states with Cook PVI between D+5 and R+5. Everything outside that range is solidly blue or solidly red, aside from perhaps that one CD in Nebraska, of course. So the list of purple states is some subset of this list.

Oregon D+5
Maine D+3
New Mexico D+3
Colorado D+1
Michigan D+1
Minnesota D+1
Nevada D+1
Virginia D+1
New Hampshire EVEN
Pennsylvania EVEN
Wisconsin EVEN
Florida R+2
Iowa R+3
North Carolina R+3
Ohio R+3
Arizona R+5
Georgia R+5

I'd include Oregon as 'solid blue' so for me it drops off the list. New Mexico is getting pretty safely blue as well.

On the whole, I think 2020 is going to be a hell of a lot more like 2018 than 2016. The same forces that drove the Dems' 40-seat pickup four months ago will still be present and motivating the voters. It's important to remember that both sides had high turnout in 2018. The only question is, who stands to pick up more votes in 2020 on top of those who voted in 2018, and where? (OK, that's two questions. )

That seems to be pretty obvious to me: older white people are reliable voters. They may not have been maxed out by 2018, but probably were a good deal closer to being maxed out than younger people and people of color were. So the Dem majority in 2020 is more likely to be bigger than smaller, compared to 2018.

Now the 'where' part for 2020:

Likely Dem: ME (except ME-2), CO, MN, MI, VA, NH, NV
Lean Dem: PA, WI
Tossup: AZ, IA, ME-2
Lean GOP: NC
Likely GOP: FL, GA, OH, NE-2

Definitions of Lean and Likely: my scale is by sevenths. "Lean X" is between a 4/7 and a 5/7 chance of Party X winning. "Likely X" is between a 5/7 and a 6.5/7 chance.

Why sevenths? (a) They seemed to fit the circumstances, and (b) I've always liked sevenths. They're the first interesting repeating decimal.

Why is Iowa a tossup after it went all in for Trump in 2016? The answer is, it didn't in 2018: Dems won the House vote in Iowa by ~52K votes.

Anyway, if you want to come back here in 20 months and see how I did, there are 11 likelies, so 8-10 of them should go for the favored party. And there are 3 leans, so 2 of them should go for the favored party.
  #12  
Old 03-18-2019, 04:48 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,240
I'm another big fan of the 50-state strategy. Not only does it set the stage for future gains (Texas isn't purple yet, but it might be 4 or 8 or 12 years from now, but only if we work for it), but it also appeals to people across the country right now. Like, the Democrats won't win Kansas in 2020... but Kansas has a lot of farmers, and so a farmer in Iowa might see the candidate visiting Kansas and concluding from that "This candidate cares about farmers", and that might help us win Iowa.
  #13  
Old 03-18-2019, 05:00 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I shade them like this:
Royal Loyal Blue: MN
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Here's the list of states with Cook PVI between D+5 and R+5. Everything outside that range is solidly blue or solidly red, aside from perhaps that one CD in Nebraska, of course. So the list of purple states is some subset of this list.

Minnesota D+1
Gotta go with RTFirefly over BobLibDemhere. Minnesota is traditionally a strong blue state and its electoral votes did go to Hillary in 2016; but by a surprisingly narrow margin. The days when the DFL could confidently count on the rural vote are gone; the state is now a microcosm of America's Coast/Flyover split, with the populous but geographically narrow Twin Cities metro area being solidly Democrat and the rest of the state firmly Republican. How the vote will go in 2020 is anyone's guess, depending on the candidates, voter disillusionment either way, and how hard the efforts are on both sides to win voter turnout.
  #14  
Old 03-18-2019, 08:58 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
Gotta go with RTFirefly over BobLibDemhere. Minnesota is traditionally a strong blue state and its electoral votes did go to Hillary in 2016; but by a surprisingly narrow margin. The days when the DFL could confidently count on the rural vote are gone; the state is now a microcosm of America's Coast/Flyover split, with the populous but geographically narrow Twin Cities metro area being solidly Democrat and the rest of the state firmly Republican. How the vote will go in 2020 is anyone's guess, depending on the candidates, voter disillusionment either way, and how hard the efforts are on both sides to win voter turnout.
I see your point, but you gotta consider that it was Hillary. Normally MN is a reliable blue presidential state. Since we have a non-Hillary vs a proven psychopath, Dems win it by 20.
  #15  
Old 03-18-2019, 10:43 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 83,232
Ohio is definitely winnable for Dems next year. Bill Clinton and Obama both carried it twice, and although Trump won it by more than 8%, his polls here have suffered lately, and the right Dem really could take it, I'd say. One more reason I regret our Sen. Sherrod Brown decided against a White House run.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/new...ed/3174521002/
  #16  
Old 03-19-2019, 07:12 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
Ohio is definitely winnable for Dems next year. Bill Clinton and Obama both carried it twice, and although Trump won it by more than 8%, his polls here have suffered lately, and the right Dem really could take it, I'd say. One more reason I regret our Sen. Sherrod Brown decided against a White House run.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/new...ed/3174521002/
I'm just not seeing Ohio as anything but a 'reach' state. The Dems were outvoted in House races by ~200,000 votes overall in Ohio in a Dem wave year.

(Yeah, I know about how well Sherrod Brown did, but what's the likelihood that the Dem nominee will be as well-liked in Ohio as Sherrod is? And given that the Dems need to win the Senate too - which may be a harder lift than winning the White House, and definitely would be so if he had left his Senate seat to be filled by a GOP governor - it's a damned good thing, IMHO, that Sherrod Brown is staying put.)
  #17  
Old 03-20-2019, 10:20 AM
BigAppleBucky's Avatar
BigAppleBucky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Long Island
Posts: 2,364
WaPo on Michigan and Wisconsin

Quote:
In Michigan and Wisconsin, Trumpís job approval ratings are much lower, but his gap is even higher. His job approval in both states is low ó 41 percent in Wisconsin and only 40 percent in Michigan. But Trump receives 46 percent of the vote against Biden in both states and gets 48 percent and 47 percent against Sanders in Wisconsin and in Michigan, respectively. Against Harris, Trump gets 50 percent in Wisconsin and 49 percent in Michigan. Thatís a nine-point increase in both cases over his seemingly paltry job approval ratings.
I find it almost unbelievable how resilient the support for Trump is.
  #18  
Old 03-20-2019, 10:20 AM
BlueOhio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Dayton OH USA
Posts: 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I'm just not seeing Ohio as anything but a 'reach' state. The Dems were outvoted in House races by ~200,000 votes overall in Ohio in a Dem wave year.

(Yeah, I know about how well Sherrod Brown did, but what's the likelihood that the Dem nominee will be as well-liked in Ohio as Sherrod is? And given that the Dems need to win the Senate too - which may be a harder lift than winning the White House, and definitely would be so if he had left his Senate seat to be filled by a GOP governor - it's a damned good thing, IMHO, that Sherrod Brown is staying put.)

I agree with this Ohio assessment. I don't doubt it will be closer, but I'm not very optimistic.
  #19  
Old 03-20-2019, 04:25 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,625
Democrats can absolutely win Ohio - with the right candidate. Dems who could win in Ohio include Biden, Beto, and Klobuchar. I would have said Harris and Booker before the campaign started, but the direction they're going in isn't the direction Ohioans want to see them go in. And I'm much, much less confident in the rest of the field, including Bernie -especially Bernie.

OTOH, Bernie might do better in, say, Wisconsin or PA. But even in these states, I think that Bernie is an electoral college nightmare for the Dems. He could run up the score in blue states, but would a lot of the so-called battleground turf

Last edited by asahi; 03-20-2019 at 04:28 PM.
  #20  
Old 03-20-2019, 05:56 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I see your point, but you gotta consider that it was Hillary....
Hillary is a highly respected woman, dedicated public servant, compassionate and intelligent. Secretary of State is a bigger resume bullet than El Paso councilman or even Mayor of Newark. Certainly Warren, Harris, and perhaps O'Rourke will be far FAR easier to attack than Hillary ever was.

The unpopularity of Hillary was mainly the result of propaganda from the GOP Lie Machine. Yes, it took decades of despicable effort for the Lie Machine to suck American thought into the sewer regarding Hillary, but they've had practice now and with the assistance of Facebook and the Kremlin I expect the lying to have unprecedented speed and viciousness. The 2020 Democratic campaign will end up focused on fighting GOP untruths.

The idea that the Democrats will win easily by running a "non-Hillary" is overly optimistic.
  #21  
Old 03-20-2019, 06:49 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Democrats can absolutely win Ohio - with the right candidate.
Trump won the union household vote in Ohio by 9 points. Obama won the same group by 23 points in 2012. Portman got the endorsement from the statewide Teamsters organization on the way to crushing his Democratic opponent in the 2016 Senate race. The right candidate for Ohio is one that can get union households to vote for a Democrat. The state only looks solidly red when Republicans are winning among a key Democratic demographic.

Last edited by DinoR; 03-20-2019 at 06:50 PM.
  #22  
Old 03-20-2019, 09:17 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by DinoR View Post
Trump won the union household vote in Ohio by 9 points. Obama won the same group by 23 points in 2012. Portman got the endorsement from the statewide Teamsters organization on the way to crushing his Democratic opponent in the 2016 Senate race. The right candidate for Ohio is one that can get union households to vote for a Democrat. The state only looks solidly red when Republicans are winning among a key Democratic demographic.
Obama ran a smart campaign, not once but twice. His approach was simple: pick one issue to go full-on libtard, make it a good one, and be centrist (or at least pretend to be) on pretty much everything else. If the Dems go full-on AOC - and I happen to like her by the way - they'll lose the rust belt. They'll absolutely lose Ohio. They'll lose Missouri, Iowa, and Indiana, and they might also lose Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. A super liberal might keep Michigan, but it wouldn't matter.

Last edited by asahi; 03-20-2019 at 09:17 PM.
  #23  
Old 03-20-2019, 10:09 PM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky View Post
WaPo on Michigan and Wisconsin



I find it almost unbelievable how resilient the support for Trump is.
The staff at 538, in a discussion about Trump's chances, discussed this phenomenon. Their take is that this gap is due to voters who don't particularly like Trump but who would never vote for a Democrat. Some of the 538 staff predict that due to this phenomenon that Trump's approval will creep up into the mid 40s from the low 40s that he has been stuck at as election day approaches. Here is a link to the article.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...hances-so-far/
  #24  
Old 03-21-2019, 05:06 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
The staff at 538, in a discussion about Trump's chances, discussed this phenomenon. Their take is that this gap is due to voters who don't particularly like Trump but who would never vote for a Democrat. Some of the 538 staff predict that due to this phenomenon that Trump's approval will creep up into the mid 40s from the low 40s that he has been stuck at as election day approaches. Here is a link to the article.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...hances-so-far/
People are confusing the president's low approval ratings for his poll ratings, which are not the same. It's one candidate against another, and I don't care who it is: the incumbent always has the advantage when things are perceived to be going at least okay in the country as a whole. The election won't be about whether people like or dislike Trump - Trump has always been generally unpopular, but a majority of voters who showed up at polls in critical states believed he was better than the other unpopular challenger.

This is why, despite the fact that Bernie Sanders is going to be very formidable during the primaries, I think he'd be toast in a national election. I think those races could be close, but Sanders would probably end up losing most, if not all, of the important battleground states. Now if we're in the middle of another 2008-style recession, then all bets are off, but even so, I think Biden, Beto, or Klobuchar are set up better to win in key states. Kamala Harris and Corey Booker could be competitive, but they'd probably need to dial back their progressive rhetoric.
  #25  
Old 03-21-2019, 09:43 AM
DigitalC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Obamatopia
Posts: 11,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
The staff at 538, in a discussion about Trump's chances, discussed this phenomenon. Their take is that this gap is due to voters who don't particularly like Trump but who would never vote for a Democrat. Some of the 538 staff predict that due to this phenomenon that Trump's approval will creep up into the mid 40s from the low 40s that he has been stuck at as election day approaches. Here is a link to the article.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...hances-so-far/
Those people still have to get up and vote. People who don't like Trump very much but hate Democrats are much more likely to stay home. I can't imagine rural voters will have the same enthusiasm they did after four years of Trump as they had in 2016 after eight years of Obama.
  #26  
Old 04-26-2019, 08:50 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 25,881
You can't simply say that Hillary barely lost three states without also noting that Trump barely lost New Hampshire, Maine, Virginia, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, and Minnesota. In fact, if you take the vote totals from 49 states excluding California, Donald Trump actually barely wins the popular vote .

By my count, that's 10 states and 103 electoral votes that are up for grabs. The Democratic candidate not only needs to run a 50-state campaign*, it had better be a damn good 50 state campaign.


*At this point, you can't even take California and the District of Columbia for granted!

Last edited by Kent Clark; 04-26-2019 at 08:51 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017