The Presidential Election Of 2016–257 Democrats, 206 Republicans, Five States (75) Swing States!

With Chris Christie, the New Jersey Governor, starting to lose public support due to the multiple scandals emerging in the past two weeks, the Republican Party is in crisis mode, as Christie was thought to have the best chance to defeat Hillary Clinton, or any other Democrat in the Presidential Election of 2016.

In actual fact, Christie had no real chance to win, and it was highly unlikely that he could have emerged from the primaries and caucuses as the nominee of his party, in the first place.

The facts have been there all along: the Democrats are a lock to win the Presidency in 2016 and beyond, with their support from Hispanics-Latinos, African Americans, women, labor, young people, educated people who believe in science, and those who believe in the promotion of gay rights, including marriage, whether they are gay or lesbian or straight in their sexual orientation!

The Electoral College is a “fait accompli” for the Democrats, with a guaranteed 257 electoral votes to 206 for the Republicans! Only five states are truly in play, and the Democrats won all five in 2008 and 2012, and are likely to win most, if not all of these five states, in 2016!

These states are:

Florida 29 electoral votes
Ohio 18 electoral votes
Virginia 13 electoral votes
Colorado 9 electoral vote
Nevada 6 electoral votes

This is a grand total of 75 electoral votes in dispute!

So If the Democrats win Florida, or Ohio, or Virginia, they win the Presidency!

If they win Colorado and Nevada together, with none of the other three, they win the Presidency!

To believe that the Democratic nominee will not win the small number of 13 electoral votes needed to win the required number of 270, requires one to be in hallucination!

Face the facts: The Democrats will win the White House in 2016, no matter who is their nominee, and since any likely candidate will be white, not African American as Barack Obama is, just makes the job of winning somewhat easier!

Of course, if the Democratic nominee wins all five of the above states in contention, then that person wins 332 electoral votes to 206 for the Republican nominee.

This is precisely the electoral vote in 2012!

And realize that Texas (38), Georgia (16). and North Carolina (15) all are moving toward the likelihood of Democrats winning their electoral vote by 2020, if not 2016, and North Carolina having gone for Barack Obama in 2008, if not in 2012!

So were these states to switch, not likely but possible in 2016, the electoral vote in 2016 could be as high as 401-137!

38 comments on “The Presidential Election Of 2016–257 Democrats, 206 Republicans, Five States (75) Swing States!

  1. Mark January 21, 2014 9:21 pm

    That’s wrong, prof. Rand Paul will win the Presidency in 2016. He will carry California.

  2. Ronald January 21, 2014 9:30 pm

    Mark, you have a right to your opinions, but not to the facts. Are you aware that California is strongly Democratic, has all state offices, and almost all Congressional seats, and has had a “Renaissance” under Governor Jerry Brown, and is in the black financially? There is no chance that it will go GOP, and Rand Paul is NOT going to be the GOP nominee, as he would cause the kind of total disaster that Barry Goldwater caused 50 years ago. The GOP is not going to nominate a libertarian, isolationist, Tea Party type! Dream on!

  3. Mark January 21, 2014 9:38 pm

    “Rand Paul is NOT going to be the GOP nominee, as he would cause the kind of total disaster that Barry Goldwater caused 50 years ago.”

    Maybe being too long in the leftist bubble makes you believe that all one has to do to defeat Paul is scream “RACIST!”. People are sick of that bullshit.

  4. Ronald January 21, 2014 9:45 pm

    Did I call Rand Paul a racist? Are you delusional, Mark? He may not be a racist, but he is also not very bright, and not able to unite Republicans and defeat Democrats, particularly in the heavily “blue'” state of California!

  5. Rustbelt Democrat January 22, 2014 10:41 am

    Right on Professor! 🙂

  6. dave martin January 22, 2014 5:09 pm

    No definitely not a racist and unlike the current divisional whitehouse inhabitant he seems to be a lawful person. Obama should be impeached and jailed for his failure to uphold his oath.

  7. Ronald January 22, 2014 5:28 pm

    Poor Dave, so hateful and ignorant! If a President is impeached, he is not removed unless there is a two thirds vote of the Senate, and then he loses his job, but is NOT jailed. Even Nixon, a true unlawful person, a crook, only faced resignation or removal, with the courts used separately if there is a case, as there was against Nixon, until Ford pardoned him.
    And Rand Paul’s dad has been engaged in racism over his career, cloaking it in so called “libertarianism”, and you forgot or did not know that Rand Paul said he was against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in an interview with Rachel Maddow. So again, ignorance is NOT bliss, Dave!

  8. dave martin January 22, 2014 5:43 pm

    Once again you assume much about me, everyone knows about those who assume.
    On a more important topic on a day when real Americans are braving the bitter cold in defense of the innocent waiting to be born, our disgusting president issues a statement celebrating the slaughter of 55 million babies. Who is the real hater?That’s rhetorical for the benefit of the leanid professor.

  9. Rustbelt Democrat January 22, 2014 7:09 pm

    LOL @ Know Nothing Davy

  10. Jane Doe January 22, 2014 7:20 pm

    I’m trying to calculate at what age the Right believes a person’s life is no longer protected. Is it right after birth? That would make sense based on their desire to trash funding for WIC. Maybe it’s around 4 or 5. That would explain pulling funding for Headstart and early childhood education. Maybe it’s when one reaches puberty, based on the push for banning sex education. Perhaps it’s at 18, when one is old enough to receive the death penalty, or volunteer for combat. Both of those are heavily supported, well, if they can be done on the cheap anyway. No, it must be in old age based on the desire to defund Medicare and Social Security.

  11. Pragmatic Progressive January 22, 2014 7:22 pm

    @Jane Doe
    I think it’s the moment the child is born. They start caring when said child is 18, when the child can be thrown into the war machine and vote.

  12. Ronald January 22, 2014 7:41 pm

    Jane Doe, you have done a GREAT job destroying Dave Martin! I could not have said it better, so I applaud you for a job well done! The hypocrisy of pro lifers, who just want unwanted children born, but do not give a damn for them once born, is beyond belief! I propose we control the reproductive lives of Dave, Mark, and all the other right wingers, and force them to have anal probes, including Colonoscopies, before they can have relations with women. You can be sure they would protest loudly, that it is an invasion of their “privacy”, but they have no problem doing that to women. True Male Chauvinist Pigs, and with that attitude, women will vote Democratic for the long term future, as freedom and privacy is cherished, and they will NOT allow government to dictate to them, as that ended in 1973!

  13. Former Republican January 23, 2014 9:29 am

    I truly have come to despise the Republican party and all that it stands for. At this point, I consider them to be a true, credible threat to the very sanctity of this nation, and to the peace and stability of the entire world, as well as the survival of mankind on this very planet. In short, I view today’s GOP as a global disease, devouring and destroying all that it touches.

  14. D January 23, 2014 12:08 pm

    With 2012 the most recent cycle, there have been 57 United States presidential elections.

    The average percentage of available states carried throughout has been 69 (counting 1824) and 70 (discounting 1824). This is with consideration of the fact that, in 1824, John Quincy Adams carried just 7 of a then-available 24 states; and that, with 1960, we established today’s 50 states with first participation of both Alaska and Hawaii.

    By today’s standard, this is carriage of an average of 34 (counting 1824) or 35 (not counting 1924) of the 50 states. (With further assessment, I will refer to the more rounded “35.”)

    Following the 1980s, the six election cycles of 1992 to 2012 have weighed down the historical average as Bill Clinton’s 32 states, from 1992, was the highest number carried. The total numbers of states carried over the last six cycles are a cumulative 178. Clinton won 32 (1992) and 31 (1996); George W. Bush won 30 (2000) and 31 (2004); and Barack Obama won 28 (2008) and 26 (2012). Those elections averaged 29 states carried. So, we’re in a period of being…underwhelmed.

    If the Democrats win a third consecutive presidential cycle in 2016, it would be healthier if that winner carries that historical average of 35 states. Over those six election cycles, the prevailing Republican [Bush] won an average of 9 electoral votes per state carried, and the Democrats [Clinton, Obama] won an average between 11 and 13 electoral votes per state carried.

    If I could hand-pick which ones a 2016-winning Democrat should carry—keeping in mind that 35 states x 12 electoral votes (average) accounts for reaching 420 electoral votes—I would go with the following: Take Barack Obama’s 2008 map of 28 states, plus Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District (Omaha area), and District of Columbia. That’s 359 electoral votes. 359/28 = 12. Start with the [18] “Blue Firewall” states (which haven’t carried once for the Republicans since after the 1980s); plus New Hampshire (a Democratic pickup for a 2004 John Kerry); and the 2008 Democratic/Obama pickups: Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and a non-state single electoral vote from the 2nd Congressional District of Nebraska (the Omaha area, which boasts similar margins to Indiana). From that 2008 Obama map, add the following: Alaska, 3; Arizona, 11; Georgia, 16; Missouri, 10; Montana; South Carolina, 9; Texas, 38. That would be good for 449 electoral votes from 35 states. Perhaps one would want to make it 450 electoral votes. Fine—go ahead and add Nebraska’s 1st Congressional District (Lincoln area), because its margins are lately similar to the state of Texas.

    I have my reasons for mentioning those that are Nos. 29 thru 35. And I don’t want to get too bogged down into details. So I will limit my examples. So let’s take the ex-bellwether Missouri. This state has boasted same-level margins, in both 2008 and 2012, as Indiana. They officially colored differently in 2008; but the spread between both states, in 2008, was just 1.16 percent; and, in 2012, their spread was 0.82 percent. That may be a developing pattern. One did take shape starting in 1996 with Colorado and Virginia. That year, losing Republican challenger ob Dole flipped the former and saw a party-support decline in the latter where their margins’ spread was just 0.58 percent. After 1996, the biggest spread between Colorado and Virginia have not exceeded 3.53 percent (from 2004, when George W. Bush carried Colorado by R+4.67 and Virginia by R+8.20). Let’s see if Lean Republicans Missouri (which had carried for all prevailing Demcorats prior to Barack Obama) and Indiana (which was a bellwether in the second half of the 1800s) are truly out of reach for winning Democrats. (Side note: With exception of 2004, Arizona and Georgia have routinely been within five percentage points in their margins spread following the 1980s. South Carolina has lately performed similarly with the Peach State—five percentage points since 1996.)

    NOTING NEVADA: Had Mitt Romney unseated Barack Obama with Election 2012, by a national margin similar or less than George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election of R+2.46, he still likely would not have flipped longtime bellwether Nevada. This state may be moving away from that bellwether status to Lean Democratic. (On the record: Nevada has carried for all winners since 1912 with exception of 1976.) Its best companion, New Mexico (which first voted in 1912 and disagreed with Nevada only in 2000)—conspicously never deemed a “battleground state” from Election 2012—performs routinely about 3 to 5 percentage points bluer than Nevada. Striking result from 2008 Nevada: This Democratic pickup for Obama was a margin of D+12.50, while nationally he defeated John McCain by D+7.26. Nevada was more Democratic than the national margin. That hadn’t happened to a prevailing Democrat since John Kennedy in 1960. (Lyndon Johnson, who defetated Barry Goldwater in 1964, won the U.S. Popular Vote by about 23 points and carried Nevada by about 17.) But Kennedy wasn’t a good example; given that his popular-vote margin was D+0.16. (Meaning, practically all his carried states overperformed his national margin.) You have to take Obama’s 2008 (and 2012) carriage of Nevada and refer all the way back to Franklin Roosevelt’s last election in 1944. Plus, add the fact that Nevada was bluer, relative the national margin, than Democratic base state Minnesota in 2008 and Pennsylvania in both 2008 and 2012. That may speak to a trend. The key to winning Nevada are the trio of Clark County (Las Vegas), Washoe County (Reno), and state capital Carson City. Obama’s wins in Washoe County and Carson City made him the first Democrat to carry those since 1964 Lyndon Johnson. (Not even Bill Clinton’s carriage of the state, from both his elections, boasted that.) The trio reps about 86 percent of the statewide vote. Obama having won them all, in 2008, destroyed John McCain’s ability for a Republican hold with Nevada. The fact that Washoe County has moved from a Lean Republican county to a bellwether country (reflecting statewide outcomes in 2004, 2008, and 2012) is helping propel the movement of Nevada. (Why not? Tennessee and Kentucky are ex-bellwethers now with Team Red. President Obama’s Illinois and Vice President Joe Biden’s Delaware are ex-bellwethers now with Team Blue.) In 2012, Mitt Romney failed to win back Washoe County. But incumbent (and interim) Republican U.S. Sen. Dean Heller did carry it. And that’s why President Obama retained carriage of Nevada with his re-election. And this why Dean Heller survived—and won his first full term—without any coattail connection to Mitt Romney.

  15. Ronald January 23, 2014 12:26 pm

    Wow, Former Republican, you have, indeed, expressed what a lot of former Republicans, including Engineer, have said in less flowery words! LOL

    D, again, you amaze me with your detail and analysis of election trends! Are you a political analyst or a professor of Political Science or History, as I am ? 🙂

  16. D January 23, 2014 1:05 pm

    Former Republican writes, “I truly have come to despise the Republican party and all that it stands for. At this point, I consider them to be a true, credible threat to the very sanctity of this nation, and to the peace and stability of the entire world, as well as the survival of mankind on this very planet. In short, I view today’s GOP as a global disease, devouring and destroying all that it touches.”

    I think the party became, and still is, spoiled over having won seven of ten presidential elections (1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004) during their realigning presidential period of 1968 to 2004.

    Today’s Republican Party divides in two—those who are after power and those who desire whoring for camera time.

    Mark’s statement about U.S. Sen. Rand Paul being a future U.S. President isn’t remotely remote. (I suspect Mark of being a troll.) And there is no harm in fantasy. But the Younger Mr. Paul is exactly the type of Republican the party establishment does not want leading their presidential ticket. Not so much an electability issue (but I will touch on that); they don’t want the breed of Republican Rand Paul represents. On the electability issue: Rand Paul couldn’t carry his home state of Kentucky in the GOP primaries…let alone score victories in the likes of the prominent New Hampshire or any of the double-digit electoral-vote states of Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and, well, not even in Texas. Now, I wouldn’t personally take offense to the idea of the Republican Party actually saying “screw the establishment” with nominating Rand Paul. The party did give the 2012 v.p. slot to the sociopathic Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan four years after the Not Ready for Any Time Sarah Palin of Alaska.

  17. Mark January 23, 2014 11:31 pm

    ” cloaking it in so called “libertarianism””

    Do you put those quotes to imply that libertarianism doesn’t exist? You don’t think there is a movement (or ideology or whatever you want to call it) whose purpose is to limit government to the protection of private property and enforcement of contracts? Really? That doesn’t exist?

  18. Ronald January 24, 2014 12:05 am

    Mark, of course there is an ideology called libertarianism, which is extremely selfish and greedy, and also is racist and fascist in many details! I guess that is acceptable to you, heh?

  19. Mark January 24, 2014 12:37 am

    Ok, so why did you say

    so-called “libertarianism”

    ? In quotes and all that, it gives the impression that doesn’t exist.

    And just FYI, when I formed my political beliefs, I was asking myself what would be the best way to fight poverty, and came to the conclusion that competition brings prices down and therefore capitalism would go a long way in making goods more accessible to poor people. I still think deregulation would help poor people by lowering prices and also by making it easier for companies to employ them.You might disagree with the reasoning, but impugning selfishness and evil motives, that’s just not accurate, believe it or not.

  20. Pragmatic Progressive January 24, 2014 6:52 am

    That chemical spill in West Virginia is the perfect example of why I’m against deregulation.

  21. Ronald January 24, 2014 8:11 am

    Thank you, Pragmatic Progressive, for making clear how deregulation is NOT good for the poor, as Mark seems to think it is a cure all for poverty, when it is JUST THE OPPOSITE!

  22. Mark January 24, 2014 9:13 am

    LOL, that’s a pretty bad example of the damage of deregulation. In a libertarian society you don’t have a right to pollute your neighbor’s property. Again, protection of property rights is one of the only two things libertarianism supports, and not allowing to pollute your neighbor’s or somebody else’s property falls under that.

  23. Ronald January 24, 2014 10:35 am

    Thanks, Rustbelt Democrat and Jane Doe, for your comments and links on the dangers of libertarianism. And I am very disturbed by the so called Pro Life movement forcing the husband of a dead woman to have to wait to bury his wife, when the fetus is not viable, and now is shown to be deformed, and to have a short, miserable life if successfully born. If only Texas showed as much concern for children and woman as for fetuses, this would be a much better world!

  24. Rustbelt Democrat January 24, 2014 10:47 am

    Mark just doesn’t get it. Environmental regulations could have prevented the spill by ensuring that inspections were done. People’s health and safety should be more important than profit!

  25. Mark January 24, 2014 2:59 pm

    That’s not a fault of libertarianism, the owner is the property has to set the rules of what can be that in his property, that’s what I advocate. In this case, it wasn’t private property, so it’s the responsibility of the government to set the rules, not individual property owners, so again it was the government fault.

    When libertarians say they want “deregulation” it doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be speed limits on government roads, because government roads aren’t private property, like oceans.

    Nice straw man, but libertarianism doesn’t say there shouldn’t be rules on property that isn’t owned by individuals, like oceans, that’s just made up.

  26. Jane Doe January 24, 2014 3:18 pm

    Amen to that Rustbelt Democrat!

  27. Pragmatic Progressive January 24, 2014 4:13 pm

    Exactly right Rustbelt! These Libertarian Repubs are disgraceful for letting businesses just do whatever they want with no consequences!

  28. Jane Doe January 24, 2014 4:57 pm

    I second that Pragmatic Progressive! I don’t trust the free market to ensure that food, water, air, and other such necessities is safe.

  29. Jane Doe January 24, 2014 5:07 pm

    From now on, I’m going to call the Repubs the Do-Nothing Party, because they don’t do anything useful.

  30. Ronald January 24, 2014 5:08 pm

    There was once a KNOW NOTHING Party, also known as the American Party, in the 1850s–nativist and biased! LOL

  31. Rustbelt Democrat January 24, 2014 5:19 pm

    Bernie Sanders just told it like it is on The Ed Show! The Repubs want to create a oligarchy!

  32. Pragmatic Progressive January 24, 2014 5:20 pm

    And they want to create a theocracy too!

  33. Philanx March 16, 2014 6:54 pm

    I basically agree Professor but I start with a base of 253 EVs. I add NV and drop IA & NH. Hispanic growth is expected to be huge in NV from ’12 to ’16. Per Nate Silver, IA & NH are quite elastic.

    Question: Could a Gov. Crist expand FL felon voting rights in 2015 via executive order despite a GOP dominated Florida Cabinet?

  34. Ronald March 16, 2014 10:44 pm

    Philanx, welcome to the blog. I am not sure. but would believe that Charlie Crist would NOT have the power to expand the vote to former felons on his own.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.