How the blazes was New Hampshire ever considered a “battleground state” and how were the polls so wrong when the final number was Obama 67 - Romney 31?
Also, Obama carried Wisconsin by 7 and both Nevada and Iowa by 6.
Now places like Florida, Virginia and Ohio, I can see being called a battleground, since they were all very close.
Was this just a spectacular all across the board failure of the polling process?
I see 52-47 in NH, not 67-31…
ETA: Oh, I get it. You’re looking at Vermont.
:smack:
Still a solid 5%.
Yes, some of the nine swing states were much swingier than others. Pennsylvania was another: it was far from a blowout, but Obama won that one cleanly and it hasn’t gone for a Republican since 1988. I don’t know if that this is a failure of the polling process. Some of those states were definitely understood to be leaning toward Obama even if the outcome was not set in stone. Ohio and Florida and Virginia and North Carolina really were very close, the others were less so.
It might have something to do with New Hampshire being notoriously unpredictable. IIRC, it was the only New England state that went for Bush against Gore and if Gore had won it Florida wouldn’t have mattered.
Political reporters writing about New Hampshire are required to talk about the state has a famous independent streak and sometimes does stuff that is craaaaaazy… but I think the reality is that it’s just somewhat less left-leaning than the rest of the Northeast. I don’t know how much poll data there was in each state, but there was enough to show Obama was almost certainly going to win Michigan, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada.
New Hampshire was considered a battleground state because it does have big swings. As said, it went for Bush in 2000. It was heavily affected by the 2010 elections – the state legislature became very Republican. So it’s not a lock for the Democrats by any means.
In 2010 the state leglislature became dominated by conservative Republicans, or at least as conservative as they get in New England. It really can swing quite far in NH.
I think it swung back to the Democrats last night.
The interesting thing about the battleground states to me is that some formerly safe republican states have been moved into the battleground status, but I don’t think any formerly safe democrat states have moved into that status.
And, as pointed out, most of the battleground states themselves are actually light-blue states.
The fact that Virginia, for example, is now a battleground state is extremely bad news for republicans.
But, but the Republican legislature clinched the state for Romney. I seem to remember a resounding, “DONE”, being echoed across the airways.
Yeah. And in general states with growing minority populations are moving in that direction. Arizona could become a battleground state soonish and maybe Texas could be one in the future. Early this morning I heard someone on CNN say that there are 19 states that have gone Democrat in the last five presidential elections - combined those states currently have 242 electoral votes. That means the Democrats are pretty much always on the cusp of winning, needing a Florida or Ohio + another state to finish the job. That’s not a minor task, but it’s an enviable position to be in. I think the Republicans have about 191 EVs that are “guaranteed” the same way. They need to make some changes to account for trends like this.
That’s somewhat countered by the fact that the “Red states” have tended to have growing populations and increased electoral votes in the new census. For example, had Romney won the states that Bush won, he would have had more electoral votes than Bush. So the effect of some red states going purple is offset, since a Republican has more leeway to lose one.
It’s true that some electoral votes have shifted to red states like Texas and Georgia over the years, yes.
I’m not sure that logic scans. Romney didn’t win some of the states that Bush won because they’re not solidly conservative states anymore. Bush won Virginia twice, but Obama just won it for the second time. Bush won North Carolina twice, but the state has basically split its votes 50-50 over the last two elections, and if it’s not a firmly Democratic state at this point, it certainly can’t be considered strong for the Republicans. Obama also won former red states Colorado and Nevada twice.
I’m not sure what you’re saying here.
You’re giving examples of Red states which became purple. I’m agreeing with this.
What I’m saying is that if a Republican loses a state or two due to that state becoming purple, that is offset to one degree or another by the fact that the remaining red states have more electoral votes than they used to.
Like this one time, at band camp, New Hampshire had medium Buffalo Wings and dipped them in Ranch AND Thousand Island dressing. Giggity!
Which is about the margin of error of polls. It would be unscientific to give the advantage to someone who polls within the margin of error of losing.
I think a better term is battleground state. Those were states that were close enough that they could be moved over the line one way or another.
Except that if every poll is providing this same result or very near it, it ceases to be “margin of error”.
And you’re correct that the shifting population helps Republicans. But the population isn’t shifting that quickly. It’s not enough to make up for a handful of states moving from solid-Republican to the tossup or into the Democrat column. I think Republicans netted six electoral votes from the 2010 census. That’d cancel out Nevada, but not, say, Virginia. Or Virginia plus Colorado and New Mexico and North Carolina.