Republican question (1 Viewer)

[Dr Oadi]

Walker won in the most progressive state outside the people's republic of Kalifornia. I don't see any reason why he doesn't have a shot of winning nationwide.

Unless people still believe republicans just can't w in unless they put out someone like Romney, McCain, or *gasp* Bush.( how did that work out for you and the Nation? )

Personally I hope it is Bush vs Clinton. My dream would be for both Warren and Paul to run outside the D&R plantation. No American could ever honestly say they didn't have a choice so didn't bother to vote

 

[timschochet]

I agree with this too. But my analysis is that at this time, in this election, the Republican base care more about defeating the GOP establishment than they do about winning the general election. That's why I wrote this was like 1964. The conservatives have had it with what they consider to be RINOs: the Bushes, Romney, McCain, Boehner, McConnell. Always giving in to Obama and the Dems. Always more interested in the Chamber of Commerce. Also making promises to social conservatives, and then breaking them. They're sick of it, and they hate these people more than they hate the Democrats. So I think they will push Walker through and the general election be damned.

What exactly is this "analysis" based on?

Polling, articles by conservative leaders, listening to conservative talk show hosts and conservative friends and family members. I may be totally off. To be honest I hope I am.

 

[Stinger Ray]

I agree with this too. But my analysis is that at this time, in this election, the Republican base care more about defeating the GOP establishment than they do about winning the general election. That's why I wrote this was like 1964. The conservatives have had it with what they consider to be RINOs: the Bushes, Romney, McCain, Boehner, McConnell. Always giving in to Obama and the Dems. Always more interested in the Chamber of Commerce. Also making promises to social conservatives, and then breaking them. They're sick of it, and they hate these people more than they hate the Democrats. So I think they will push Walker through and the general election be damned.

What exactly is this "analysis" based on?

His analysis was also wrong about the Dems keeping control of the Senate in the last election.

 

[humpback]

I agree with this too. But my analysis is that at this time, in this election, the Republican base care more about defeating the GOP establishment than they do about winning the general election. That's why I wrote this was like 1964. The conservatives have had it with what they consider to be RINOs: the Bushes, Romney, McCain, Boehner, McConnell. Always giving in to Obama and the Dems. Always more interested in the Chamber of Commerce. Also making promises to social conservatives, and then breaking them. They're sick of it, and they hate these people more than they hate the Democrats. So I think they will push Walker through and the general election be damned.

What exactly is this "analysis" based on?

Polling, articles by conservative leaders, listening to conservative talk show hosts and conservative friends and family members. I may be totally off. To be honest I hope I am.

Well, you usually are.

Seriously though, it comes back to you (and others) overestimating the pull of the "conservative base". I don't doubt that they are "fed up" with things and will kick and scream yet again, but in the end they are just a vocal minority of the party. Of course, your hyperbole is amusing as always (they certainly don't hate moderate repubs more than dems).

 

[timschochet]

I agree with this too. But my analysis is that at this time, in this election, the Republican base care more about defeating the GOP establishment than they do about winning the general election. That's why I wrote this was like 1964. The conservatives have had it with what they consider to be RINOs: the Bushes, Romney, McCain, Boehner, McConnell. Always giving in to Obama and the Dems. Always more interested in the Chamber of Commerce. Also making promises to social conservatives, and then breaking them. They're sick of it, and they hate these people more than they hate the Democrats. So I think they will push Walker through and the general election be damned.

What exactly is this "analysis" based on?

Polling, articles by conservative leaders, listening to conservative talk show hosts and conservative friends and family members. I may be totally off. To be honest I hope I am.

Well, you usually are.

Seriously though, it comes back to you (and others) overestimating the pull of the "conservative base". I don't doubt that they are "fed up" with things and will kick and scream yet again, but in the end they are just a vocal minority of the party. Of course, your hyperbole is amusing as always (they certainly don't hate moderate repubs more than dems).

I'm not suggesting they will achieve a clear cut victory here- they won't. But Walker seems to me to be the one guy who can give the base what it wants and yet appear establishment enough to gain support from the bigwigs as well. He alone has the ability, perhaps, to unite all wings of the party behind him. That's why I give him the best shot at winning.

 

[tommyboy]

I need to correct something I wrote here because it didn't come out right and jon is partially correct in his criticism of me. It was wrong of me to write that in every argument there was always a certain amount of bigotry/ I don't really believe that. The real point I was trying to get at was that many if not most Latino Americans do believe it, and aren't convinced by arguments otherwise. And quite often, though not always, they have a good point IMO.

You might look into latino vs black racism, which goes both ways.

I dont really care about the racism angle, at all. Im more concerned about security and the orderly assimilation of people in this country, the melting pot, which works well imo. Wide open borders doesn't work

 

[jon_mx]

I agree with this too. But my analysis is that at this time, in this election, the Republican base care more about defeating the GOP establishment than they do about winning the general election. That's why I wrote this was like 1964. The conservatives have had it with what they consider to be RINOs: the Bushes, Romney, McCain, Boehner, McConnell. Always giving in to Obama and the Dems. Always more interested in the Chamber of Commerce. Also making promises to social conservatives, and then breaking them. They're sick of it, and they hate these people more than they hate the Democrats. So I think they will push Walker through and the general election be damned.

What exactly is this "analysis" based on?

You see Republicans all think the same. Every one if them. And there are only three things that influence their thinking. racism. Anti-science. Anti-establishment. You can easily project them people's thinking on every issue. Progressives on the other hand are highly intelligent and have thoroughly thought out opinions on every issue. Their motives are always pure. I learned all this from watching msnbc.

 

[D_House]

Walker on legal immigration: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417308/immigration-walker-bucks-beltway-consensus-ian-tuttle

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Walker won in the most progressive state outside the people's republic of Kalifornia.

You can't possibly be referring to Wisconsin, can you?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Share of two-party vote in 2012 Presidential Election...

State	Dem%	Rep%DC	96.0%	4.0%NY	68.3%	31.7%HI	67.2%	32.8%MD	65.4%	34.6%DE	64.8%	35.2%VT	63.6%	36.4%MA	63.0%	37.0%RI	62.7%	37.3%CA	62.1%	37.9%CT	59.9%	40.1%MN	59.3%	40.7%NJ	58.9%	41.1%WA	57.6%	42.4%OR	57.1%	42.9%IL	57.0%	43.0%MI	56.0%	44.0%NM	55.0%	45.0%ME	54.4%	45.6%PA	52.7%	47.3%NH	52.5%	47.5%WI*	52.4%	47.6%IA	52.3%	47.7%FL	51.5%	48.5%VA	51.3%	48.7%NV	50.9%	49.1%OH	50.9%	49.1%CO	50.8%	49.2%NC	49.9%	50.1%MO	48.9%	51.1%IN	47.8%	52.2%AZ	46.4%	53.6%MT	46.4%	53.6%WV	46.2%	53.8%ND	44.6%	55.4%GA	43.5%	56.5%SC	43.0%	57.0%SD	41.7%	58.3%TX	41.3%	58.7%MS	41.0%	59.0%KY	39.1%	60.9%NE	39.0%	61.0%AL	37.4%	62.6%AK	37.0%	63.0%TN	36.2%	63.8%AR	35.2%	64.8%ID	33.7%	66.3%LA	32.8%	67.2%OK	32.8%	67.2%KS	30.7%	69.3%UT	30.0%	70.0%WY	25.6%	74.4%

 

[tommyGunZ]

I need to correct something I wrote here because it didn't come out right and jon is partially correct in his criticism of me. It was wrong of me to write that in every argument there was always a certain amount of bigotry/ I don't really believe that. The real point I was trying to get at was that many if not most Latino Americans do believe it, and aren't convinced by arguments otherwise. And quite often, though not always, they have a good point IMO.

You might look into latino vs black racism, which goes both ways. I dont really care about the racism angle, at all. Im more concerned about security and the orderly assimilation of people in this country, the melting pot, which works well imo. Wide open borders doesn't work

Then I guess we should be happy that not a single politician of note on either side is advocating open borders.

 

[roadkill1292]

It's no problem finding a lot of advocacy online for a Repub candidate who will "energize the base," and that running a non-social conservative is what cost the GOP the last two presidential elections. My question for the board Republicans is, is this a realistic strategy in any conceivable way? Is there really a net positive possible from gaining a slightly larger turnout versus turning off hordes of independents?

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

It's no problem finding a lot of advocacy online for a Repub candidate who will "energize the base," and that running a non-social conservative is what cost the GOP the last two presidential elections. My question for the board Republicans is, is this a realistic strategy in any conceivable way? Is there really a net positive possible from gaining a slightly larger turnout versus turning off hordes of independents?

Not a Republican, but I think the issue the GOP has is well-visualized in wdcrob's chart. As long as the states with a > 10% edge for Democrats include NY, CA, IL, and MI the GOP can't risk turning off the middle-of-the-road voters. That's 208 electoral votes without even having to try much. From there, the Democrats have a TON of paths to get to 270. I've added the electoral votes for each of those states and shown where the magical 270 point is reached. The GOP basically has to win from Florida and below to get to 270. That doesn't scream "go hard line social conservative". Basically if the Democrats carry any one of Virginia or Florida or Ohio the GOP will lose the presidential election. The Democrats can even lose all of those, win Colorado and Nevada, and still get to 270.

Conventional wisdom (always iffy I know) says Jeb will win Florida and may not have to focus a ton of campaign resources there to do it. He may also be appealing for Virginia and Ohio voters, who tend to skew fairly moderate as a whole.

Share of two-party vote in 2012 Presidential Election...

State	Dem%	Rep%DC	96.0%	4.0%    3NY	68.3%	31.7%   29HI	67.2%	32.8%   4MD	65.4%	34.6%   10DE	64.8%	35.2%   3VT	63.6%	36.4%   3MA	63.0%	37.0%   11RI	62.7%	37.3%   4CA	62.1%	37.9%   55CT	59.9%	40.1%   7MN	59.3%	40.7%   10NJ	58.9%	41.1%   14WA	57.6%	42.4%   12OR	57.1%	42.9%   7IL	57.0%	43.0%   20MI	56.0%	44.0%   16NM	55.0%	45.0%   5ME	54.4%	45.6%   4PA	52.7%	47.3%   20NH	52.5%	47.5%   4WI*	52.4%	47.6%   10IA	52.3%	47.7%   6FL	51.5%	48.5%   29  > Any one of these states puts the Democrats over 270VA	51.3%	48.7%   13  >  Any one of these states puts the Democrats over 270NV	50.9%	49.1%OH	50.9%	49.1%   18  > Any one of these states puts the Democrats over 270CO	50.8%	49.2%NC	49.9%	50.1%MO	48.9%	51.1%IN	47.8%	52.2%AZ	46.4%	53.6%MT	46.4%	53.6%WV	46.2%	53.8%ND	44.6%	55.4%GA	43.5%	56.5%SC	43.0%	57.0%SD	41.7%	58.3%TX	41.3%	58.7%MS	41.0%	59.0%KY	39.1%	60.9%NE	39.0%	61.0%AL	37.4%	62.6%AK	37.0%	63.0%TN	36.2%	63.8%AR	35.2%	64.8%ID	33.7%	66.3%LA	32.8%	67.2%OK	32.8%	67.2%KS	30.7%	69.3%UT	30.0%	70.0%WY	25.6%	74.4%

 

[Chadstroma]

Walker won in the most progressive state outside the people's republic of Kalifornia. I don't see any reason why he doesn't have a shot of winning nationwide.

Unless people still believe republicans just can't w in unless they put out someone like Romney, McCain, or *gasp* Bush.( how did that work out for you and the Nation? )

Personally I hope it is Bush vs Clinton. My dream would be for both Warren and Paul to run outside the D&R plantation. No American could ever honestly say they didn't have a choice so didn't bother to vote

Wisconsin is not more progressive than Illinois and not even close. I am sure there are some Northastern seaboard states that would supplant Illinois as being even more progressive.

 

[jon_mx]

Walker won in the most progressive state outside the people's republic of Kalifornia. I don't see any reason why he doesn't have a shot of winning nationwide.

Unless people still believe republicans just can't w in unless they put out someone like Romney, McCain, or *gasp* Bush.( how did that work out for you and the Nation? )

Personally I hope it is Bush vs Clinton. My dream would be for both Warren and Paul to run outside the D&R plantation. No American could ever honestly say they didn't have a choice so didn't bother to vote

Wisconsin is not more progressive than Illinois and not even close. I am sure there are some Northastern seaboard states that would supplant Illinois as being even more progressive.

Wisconsin is not close to the most progressive state, but it does have more than their share of ####### Democrats who need to be taken out to the woodshed and have the living crap beat out of them.

 

[Chadstroma]

Walker won in the most progressive state outside the people's republic of Kalifornia. I don't see any reason why he doesn't have a shot of winning nationwide.

Unless people still believe republicans just can't w in unless they put out someone like Romney, McCain, or *gasp* Bush.( how did that work out for you and the Nation? )

Personally I hope it is Bush vs Clinton. My dream would be for both Warren and Paul to run outside the D&R plantation. No American could ever honestly say they didn't have a choice so didn't bother to vote

Wisconsin is not more progressive than Illinois and not even close. I am sure there are some Northastern seaboard states that would supplant Illinois as being even more progressive.

Wisconsin is not close to the most progressive state, but it does have more than their share of ####### Democrats who need to be taken out to the woodshed and have the living crap beat out of them.

No disagreement there.

It is more than fair to say that Wisconsin is a blue leaning swing state. But it is silly to call it the most progressive state outside of California.

 

[FlapJacks]

I think the 'open borders' thing is normally thrown out as an accusation from someone who wants to do nothing but build a fence and deport towards anyone who tries to approach the problem with more of an open mind of solutions and/or the political ramifications.

First, the problem needs more of a solution than build fences, more border patrol, more interior enforcement, etc. I have to wonder if some of those who oppose anything else have a tinge of xenophobia running through their veins but I think others just simply have not really thought through the problem. We need immigrants. We need a secure border. We can better secure the border versus drugs, terror, etc if we provide better avenues to deal with the simple migrant looking for income and a better life. What does that look like? I am not 100% sure but I think a mix of a lot of the stuff talked about that leads to the 'open borders' nonsense.

Second, demographics are changing. The latino population are in many ways ripe for the GOP to take in as there is alot of what the GOP stands for within the culture. The biggest problem is a sense that the GOP is against latinos. This perception is almost exclusively due to the immigrant issue. A position of build the fences and hire more border patrol agents alientes this demographic. If the GOP can win the latino vote then it is a game changer politically. If they don't eventually the GOP will certainly be the permament minority party.

One question is that with the labor participation rate at such a low level, how much capacity for new people do we gave before it puts even more of a strain on our societal systems?

 

[FlapJacks]

I see Tim ruined another thread...

 

[FairWarning]

If a republican candidate steps up and says to close the borders, potentially they lose the illegal immigrant vote. Chances are they are voting D anyway.

 

[Chadstroma]

I think the 'open borders' thing is normally thrown out as an accusation from someone who wants to do nothing but build a fence and deport towards anyone who tries to approach the problem with more of an open mind of solutions and/or the political ramifications.

First, the problem needs more of a solution than build fences, more border patrol, more interior enforcement, etc. I have to wonder if some of those who oppose anything else have a tinge of xenophobia running through their veins but I think others just simply have not really thought through the problem. We need immigrants. We need a secure border. We can better secure the border versus drugs, terror, etc if we provide better avenues to deal with the simple migrant looking for income and a better life. What does that look like? I am not 100% sure but I think a mix of a lot of the stuff talked about that leads to the 'open borders' nonsense.

Second, demographics are changing. The latino population are in many ways ripe for the GOP to take in as there is alot of what the GOP stands for within the culture. The biggest problem is a sense that the GOP is against latinos. This perception is almost exclusively due to the immigrant issue. A position of build the fences and hire more border patrol agents alientes this demographic. If the GOP can win the latino vote then it is a game changer politically. If they don't eventually the GOP will certainly be the permament minority party.

One question is that with the labor participation rate at such a low level, how much capacity for new people do we gave before it puts even more of a strain on our societal systems?

That is a good question.

I suspect the answer is driven largely off of geographic location. I remember seeing some date a couple of years back that migrants were leaving more than coming because of the bad economic situation. For the typical Mexican/Central/South American that is migrating illegally, they are doing so for work. If there is no work then they are less likely to come and/or more likely to go back. Alot of these poor people are leaving their families behind and doing it as a way to improve their family's situation. I respect that.

 

[otello]

I need to correct something I wrote here because it didn't come out right and jon is partially correct in his criticism of me. It was wrong of me to write that in every argument there was always a certain amount of bigotry/ I don't really believe that. The real point I was trying to get at was that many if not most Latino Americans do believe it, and aren't convinced by arguments otherwise. And quite often, though not always, they have a good point IMO.

Tim, do you believe that most (i.e., the majority) Latinos believe that those who are in favor of legal immigration are bigots or racists? What is your basis for that statement, besides your opinion?

 

[roadkill1292]

So what's so special about Jeb? Is he innovative? Co-operative? Fiscally prudent? Inclusive or exclusive?

 

[Chadstroma]

So what's so special about Jeb? Is he innovative? Co-operative? Fiscally prudent? Inclusive or exclusive?

In terms of this question? He married a Mexican-American, speaks Spanish and generally more open to immigration reform that includes things like a pathway to citizenship.

 

[roadkill1292]

So what's so special about Jeb? Is he innovative? Co-operative? Fiscally prudent? Inclusive or exclusive?

In terms of this question? He married a Mexican-American, speaks Spanish and generally more open to immigration reform that includes things like a pathway to citizenship.

That's good to know. I just want to know about him in general terms, though, not just on immigration policy.

 

[Joe Summer]

So what's so special about Jeb?

He has the most money.

 

[Chadstroma]

So what's so special about Jeb? Is he innovative? Co-operative? Fiscally prudent? Inclusive or exclusive?

In terms of this question? He married a Mexican-American, speaks Spanish and generally more open to immigration reform that includes things like a pathway to citizenship.

That's good to know. I just want to know about him in general terms, though, not just on immigration policy.

In general? Three things really: Name, connections and money.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's no problem finding a lot of advocacy online for a Repub candidate who will "energize the base," and that running a non-social conservative is what cost the GOP the last two presidential elections. My question for the board Republicans is, is this a realistic strategy in any conceivable way? Is there really a net positive possible from gaining a slightly larger turnout versus turning off hordes of independents?

Not a Republican, but I think the issue the GOP has is well-visualized in wdcrob's chart. As long as the states with a > 10% edge for Democrats include NY, CA, IL, and MI the GOP can't risk turning off the middle-of-the-road voters. That's 208 electoral votes without even having to try much. From there, the Democrats have a TON of paths to get to 270. I've added the electoral votes for each of those states and shown where the magical 270 point is reached. The GOP basically has to win from Florida and below to get to 270. That doesn't scream "go hard line social conservative". Basically if the Democrats carry any one of Virginia or Florida or Ohio the GOP will lose the presidential election. The Democrats can even lose all of those, win Colorado and Nevada, and still get to 270.

Conventional wisdom (always iffy I know) says Jeb will win Florida and may not have to focus a ton of campaign resources there to do it. He may also be appealing for Virginia and Ohio voters, who tend to skew fairly moderate as a whole.

Share of two-party vote in 2012 Presidential Election...

State Dem% Rep%DC 96.0% 4.0% 3NY 68.3% 31.7% 29HI 67.2% 32.8% 4MD 65.4% 34.6% 10DE 64.8% 35.2% 3VT 63.6% 36.4% 3MA 63.0% 37.0% 11RI 62.7% 37.3% 4CA 62.1% 37.9% 55CT 59.9% 40.1% 7MN 59.3% 40.7% 10NJ 58.9% 41.1% 14WA 57.6% 42.4% 12OR 57.1% 42.9% 7IL 57.0% 43.0% 20MI 56.0% 44.0% 16NM 55.0% 45.0% 5ME 54.4% 45.6% 4PA 52.7% 47.3% 20NH 52.5% 47.5% 4WI* 52.4% 47.6% 10IA 52.3% 47.7% 6FL 51.5% 48.5% 29 > Any one of these states puts the Democrats over 270VA 51.3% 48.7% 13 > Any one of these states puts the Democrats over 270NV 50.9% 49.1%OH 50.9% 49.1% 18 > Any one of these states puts the Democrats over 270CO 50.8% 49.2%NC 49.9% 50.1%MO 48.9% 51.1%IN 47.8% 52.2%AZ 46.4% 53.6%MT 46.4% 53.6%WV 46.2% 53.8%ND 44.6% 55.4%GA 43.5% 56.5%SC 43.0% 57.0%SD 41.7% 58.3%TX 41.3% 58.7%MS 41.0% 59.0%KY 39.1% 60.9%NE 39.0% 61.0%AL 37.4% 62.6%AK 37.0% 63.0%TN 36.2% 63.8%AR 35.2% 64.8%ID 33.7% 66.3%LA 32.8% 67.2%OK 32.8% 67.2%KS 30.7% 69.3%UT 30.0% 70.0%WY 25.6% 74.4%

I've been looking for this, thanks for posting. I think this is where it's at.

Here's a WaPo article I saw on the same issue.

Here's the source article.

The 10 closest states of the 2012 presidential election range from Wisconsin and Nevada, which each went for President Barack Obama by more than 6 points, to Florida, which went for Obama by only slightly more than a half of a point, and North Carolina, which was carried by Republican Mitt Romney. ...

Between those two extremes (moving from Obama’s better states to his weaker ones) are New Hampshire, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Virginia and Ohio.

Personally I think the two things that could affect this are:

• We're looking at 2012, and let's face it Obama drew out a lot of people who ordinarily did not vote so frequently or did not necessarily vote Democratic.
• The GOP has two Hispanics in the race, while the Democrats have none (and Holder just indicted the most prominent national Democratic Hispanic politician). Point just being that a Rubio as the nominee or (less so) as VP could affect this calculus and the GOP has a pretty good number of Hispanic pols who can support a race nationally in various states (NM, NV, FL for example). On the other hand the Democrats are almost a lock to nominate Castro as VP, which could counterbalance things.

 

[timschochet]

I need to correct something I wrote here because it didn't come out right and jon is partially correct in his criticism of me. It was wrong of me to write that in every argument there was always a certain amount of bigotry/ I don't really believe that. The real point I was trying to get at was that many if not most Latino Americans do believe it, and aren't convinced by arguments otherwise. And quite often, though not always, they have a good point IMO.

Tim, do you believe that most (i.e., the majority) Latinos believe that those who are in favor of legal immigration are bigots or racists? What is your basis for that statement, besides your opinion?

Not sure what you mean by "those who are in favor of legal immigration".

Let's put it this way: I believe that a majority of Latino Americans believe that those:

1. Who want to deport all or most illegal immigrants

2. Who complain loudly about illegal immigrants as the source of many problems in this country

3. Who loudly oppose granting some sort of legal recognition and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants

are not so much anti-illegal as they are anti-Latino. I believe that because polling suggests it. But to be honest, I wouldn't need polling, because I see in my own family that anyone who criticizes Israel is suspected of being anti-Semitic. Among a lot of black people, if you criticize President Obama you are suspected of racism. And so forth. And the problem is that in each of these situations, there are usually enough people that fit the bill so as to give the suspicions justification.

I do NOT believe that Latinos are right in feeling that anyone who fits into the above categories is an anti-Latino bigot. But some are.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

It's no problem finding a lot of advocacy online for a Repub candidate who will "energize the base," and that running a non-social conservative is what cost the GOP the last two presidential elections. My question for the board Republicans is, is this a realistic strategy in any conceivable way? Is there really a net positive possible from gaining a slightly larger turnout versus turning off hordes of independents?

Not a Republican, but I think the issue the GOP has is well-visualized in wdcrob's chart. As long as the states with a > 10% edge for Democrats include NY, CA, IL, and MI the GOP can't risk turning off the middle-of-the-road voters. That's 208 electoral votes without even having to try much. From there, the Democrats have a TON of paths to get to 270. I've added the electoral votes for each of those states and shown where the magical 270 point is reached. The GOP basically has to win from Florida and below to get to 270. That doesn't scream "go hard line social conservative". Basically if the Democrats carry any one of Virginia or Florida or Ohio the GOP will lose the presidential election. The Democrats can even lose all of those, win Colorado and Nevada, and still get to 270.

Conventional wisdom (always iffy I know) says Jeb will win Florida and may not have to focus a ton of campaign resources there to do it. He may also be appealing for Virginia and Ohio voters, who tend to skew fairly moderate as a whole.

Share of two-party vote in 2012 Presidential Election...

State Dem% Rep%DC 96.0% 4.0% 3NY 68.3% 31.7% 29HI 67.2% 32.8% 4MD 65.4% 34.6% 10DE 64.8% 35.2% 3VT 63.6% 36.4% 3MA 63.0% 37.0% 11RI 62.7% 37.3% 4CA 62.1% 37.9% 55CT 59.9% 40.1% 7MN 59.3% 40.7% 10NJ 58.9% 41.1% 14WA 57.6% 42.4% 12OR 57.1% 42.9% 7IL 57.0% 43.0% 20MI 56.0% 44.0% 16NM 55.0% 45.0% 5ME 54.4% 45.6% 4PA 52.7% 47.3% 20NH 52.5% 47.5% 4WI* 52.4% 47.6% 10IA 52.3% 47.7% 6FL 51.5% 48.5% 29 > Any one of these states puts the Democrats over 270VA 51.3% 48.7% 13 > Any one of these states puts the Democrats over 270NV 50.9% 49.1%OH 50.9% 49.1% 18 > Any one of these states puts the Democrats over 270CO 50.8% 49.2%NC 49.9% 50.1%MO 48.9% 51.1%IN 47.8% 52.2%AZ 46.4% 53.6%MT 46.4% 53.6%WV 46.2% 53.8%ND 44.6% 55.4%GA 43.5% 56.5%SC 43.0% 57.0%SD 41.7% 58.3%TX 41.3% 58.7%MS 41.0% 59.0%KY 39.1% 60.9%NE 39.0% 61.0%AL 37.4% 62.6%AK 37.0% 63.0%TN 36.2% 63.8%AR 35.2% 64.8%ID 33.7% 66.3%LA 32.8% 67.2%OK 32.8% 67.2%KS 30.7% 69.3%UT 30.0% 70.0%WY 25.6% 74.4%

I've been looking for this, thanks for posting. I think this is where it's at.

Here's a WaPo article I saw on the same issue.

Here's the source article.

The 10 closest states of the 2012 presidential election range from Wisconsin and Nevada, which each went for President Barack Obama by more than 6 points, to Florida, which went for Obama by only slightly more than a half of a point, and North Carolina, which was carried by Republican Mitt Romney. ...

Between those two extremes (moving from Obama’s better states to his weaker ones) are New Hampshire, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Virginia and Ohio.

Personally I think the two things that could affect this are:

• We're looking at 2012, and let's face it Obama drew out a lot of people who ordinarily did not vote so frequently or did not necessarily vote Democratic.
• The GOP has two Hispanics in the race, while the Democrats have none (and Holder just indicted the most prominent national Democratic Hispanic politician). Point just being that a Rubio as the nominee or (less so) as VP could affect this calculus and the GOP has a pretty good number of Hispanic pols who can support a race nationally in various states (NM, NV, FL for example). On the other hand the Democrats are almost a lock to nominate Castro as VP, which could counterbalance things.

Gotta be careful ascribing too much of a pull for Rubio among Latin Americans nationally. Cuban-Americans aren't necessarily received well among other Latin-Americans. Cubans don't have the same issues with getting legal status in the US as literally every other Latin nationality.

The GOP has fallen prey to thinking of Latin voters as a monolithic entity in the past and it's bitten them in the backside. The whole "Latin Americans are 'naturally' Republicans because of their Catholic faith" in 2012 was shockingly tone-deaf. It seems that they are starting to head down that path again by making that group a single-issue bloc. I think they'll end-up alienating Latin Americans by pandering on a single issue if they aren't careful.

Cuban-Americans are also located almost entirely in South Florida, which is great for that state (a state that a ticket including Rubio should win easily anyway) but doesn't necessarily translate well elsewhere.

Finally, if Hillary does get the nomination you have to think it will bump the female vote up at least a few points, most of them for Hillary. That will create a whole new set of problems for the GOP if they aren't careful.

I'm not saying the GOP can't win in 2016 (obviously), just pointing out that the Democrats have a lot of different paths to get to 270.