"Ohio might be one of the Republicans’ lesser worries."
States they won by double digits (I rounded up NM) put Democrats more than two-thirds of the way to 270 electoral votes.
I agree with Silver's typical cautiousness at the end -- things change, the GOP can rebuild its ground game, etc. -- but those are some daunting numbers.
Obama received 191 electoral votes in states won by double digits. Romney won 175. Maybe a little daunting.
Posted by: David Boyd | Nov 16, 2012 at 05:04 PM
The GOP seems to be stumbling to the realization that it needs to appeal to those portions of the population that are increasing in number, not decreasing. The fact that it has spent the better part of the last 40 years portraying them as The Enemy is an awful lot of baggage to carry, though.
Posted by: justcorbly | Nov 16, 2012 at 05:22 PM
Sorry to be unclear, DB, I meant the whole chart, not just the part I called out. But it's interesting to look at the angle you mention - Romney did win big (huge, even) in some states, but those were almost the only states he won. Obama got to 272 with no state margin lower than 4.7%, with a lot of not-really-close states in the mix. In other words, barring big changes, the GOP may have to run the table in every state that was even close to close in 2012, which seems (the week after the election, at least) daunting.
Posted by: Ed Cone | Nov 16, 2012 at 05:25 PM
I think Democrats felt the same way after Reagan kicked Mondale's ass 49 states to 1. Eight years later, Bill Clinton was elected and served two terms.
Dole got his ass beat in 1996 379 to 159. Dole only won 19 states. Eight years later, Bush beat Kerry 286 to 251- a pickup of 127 electoral votes compared to Dole. He also won 31 states. Bush won Florida, Ohio, and Virginia by a greater margin than Obama did this last time. Similarly, Clinton won Florida and Ohio by a greater margin than Obama (Virginia went Dole).
What does this show? That the same states are in play every election and the margins can swing wildly. It also indicates to me that having a good candidate may be more important than party and ideology.
Posted by: Spag | Nov 16, 2012 at 09:15 PM
Yes, good candidates like Dan Quayle, John McCain, Mitt Romney and let's not forget Sarah Palin don'tcha know.
Posted by: NotSpag | Nov 16, 2012 at 09:56 PM
Right up there with Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry.
Posted by: Spag | Nov 16, 2012 at 10:06 PM
Just so long as no one disparages Lloyd Bentsen. The man won one electoral vote and was a damn good Secretary of the Treasury -- if not the best, post-WW2.
Posted by: MojoNixon | Nov 16, 2012 at 10:29 PM
I'd take all three (Mondale, Dukakis AND Kerry) over Sarah Palin any day of the week. Sorry Sam.
Posted by: Ged | Nov 17, 2012 at 11:37 AM
I don't think Sarah Palin has ever ran for President. I'd take her over Nancy Pelosi if she did.
Posted by: Spag | Nov 17, 2012 at 01:52 PM
Of course you would Sam, of course you would.
Posted by: Ged | Nov 17, 2012 at 03:58 PM