What Can We Learn from 2010 in 2012?
After the exhilaration of the Republican tsunami, here is a reality check that Republicans must heed if the GOP is to take back the White House in 2012 and keep Obama a one-term president.
The 2010 victory of Republican candidates in solid blue or battleground states does not mean the state has turned red for the 2012 presidential election. Any Republican who thinks otherwise needs to examine historical political trends.
For the 2010 midterms, voters were older, whiter, richer, and more conservative — and in 2012 their votes could once again be diluted by younger, liberal, blue-collar, and non-white Democratic voters showing up en masse. Further thinning the stew from the 2010 midterm voter groups will be millions of 18-year-olds voting for the first time, and quite likely Democratic.
According to the 2010 CNN national exit poll, here are the ideological and party data that yielded such large Republican victories:
- Liberals comprised 20% of the electorate and voted 90% Democrat.
- Conservatives comprised 42% of the electorate and voted 84% Republican.
- Moderates comprised 38% of the electorate and voted 42% Republican and 55% Democrat.
Here is the breakdown by party identification:
- Democrats comprised 35% of the electorate and voted 91% Democrat.
- Republicans comprised 35% of the electorate and voted 94% Republican.
- Independents comprised 29% of the electorate and voted 37% Democrat and 56% Republican.
Obviously, moderates and Independents turned out to supplement Republican conservatives in 2010.
The most important question for the 2012 election: can Republicans count on this fickle group of moderates and Independents to vote for the GOP presidential candidate in 2012 and turn Obama’s 2008 blue states red? For without their support in key states, the GOP will not be able to put together the winning coalition of 270 electoral votes necessary to win the White House.
So with all this is mind, here are just five examples of electorally rich 2008 blue states that turned “red” in 2010: Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and New Jersey (which actually turned “red” in 2009). All these states, even with a current of red running through them, have strong historical odds of staying presidential blue in 2012 unless Republicans nominate a remarkable candidate who can break through.
(Ohio was not included in this group, for it is a traditional red state now back to trending red even though it went Obama blue in 2008. However, it will be an important battleground state in 2012.)
FLORIDA
Republican wishful thinking is that Florida went red in 2010 will stay red for 2012 with the election of both a Republican governor and Republican U.S. senator.
This is not a safe assumption.
The stakes are unbelievably high, for if the GOP presidential candidate loses Florida’s 29 electoral votes (up from 27 in 2008), he or she could lose the 2012 presidential election.
But since life is unfair, Obama could win re-election without Florida.
Here are the numbers to ponder.
Governor Rick Scott was elected with a small margin of 48.9% vs. 47.7% against Alex Sink, his Democratic opponent. Senator Marco Rubio was elected by winning 48.9% of the vote in a quirky three-way race against Republican Governor Charlie Crist, who jumped ship, ran as an Independent, and garnered 29.7% of the vote, and against Democrat Congressman Kendrick Meek, who received 20.1% of the vote. Crist and Meek earned 49.8% to Rubio’s 48.9%.
The very small margins of these victories should be warning signs to Republicans in the next general election, because the 2010 midterms had a conservative voter base; prevailing sentiment was extremely favorable to Republicans, and Independent voters also jumped on board. Thus, Florida in 2011 can hardly be considered a red state.
Also, Florida in 2012 will be the most fiercely contested state because Obama knows a win there could guarantee his chances of re-election.
Remember how Obama won Florida in 2008 by 50.9% to McCain’s 48.4%. Very close by Obama’s 2008 standards, with so many lopsided victories in other states.
In 2004, Bush won Florida by a more comfortable margin, 52% to 47.1 %. And we know what happened in the 2000 presidential election. See the HBO movie Recount if you don’t.
Will history repeat itself in 2012? There is a good chance of that happening, but this time with no hanging chads.
One of Obama’s Florida political consultants recently wrote an interesting piece titled “So Just How Close is Florida?” Recommended reading for paranoid Republicans concerned about 2012.
What can we learn?..well,for one thing,I learned that if an election goes into ‘overtime’,it means the Democrats will find a way to steal it.
And to keep it from going into overtime, the new Republican leadership needs to make it clear to the voters exactly WHY any Democrat is dangerous to America (unless you want communism, and communism isn’t dead). This isn’t going to happen by continually repeating the things the Republican Party stands for. They said that for years, and they did pretty much the opposite, which is why Dubya let us all down by not tending to massive spending, combatting the belief in the crisis of man-made global warming/cap & trade, and the economic and social havoc wrought by winking at illegal immigration.
The WHY needs to be publicized by logically explaining how and why the Democrat Party leadership of presumably normal Americans is working overtime to deliberately ruin our economy, weaken our military, and turn our young into knowledge-deprived robots. How this is happening (we’re already halfway there) is deftly explained in the book “Set Up and Sold Out,” by Holly Swanson. If you look beyond the poor editing (mostly punctuation), the wisdom and logic in this book paints a very clear picture of the big plan that uses the environment as ammunition, and trickery, lies and deceit as tactics. There is a world of meat here, and if the Republican Party would just use it, every state could be a Red State in 2012. The facts drawn upon in this book lead the reader to understand what is being done to us and what that big plan really is, and this must be made very plain to the voters if the Democrats are to be defeated – really wiped out – in 2012. There is a year left to educate the voters, but the process needs to start right away to have an effect.
A Republican who is not a doctrinaire Conservative is a Democrat. He will reach for governmental solutions like the other Democrats. Nothing will ever change unless we get a different kind of person in government.
As for the question of these remaining Red States? Yes, of course they shall. There are historical forces at work. The tide in 2006 produced a huge Dem victory, turning out even good Republicans. 2008 was a historical force election. 2010 was 2006 redux, in reverse. 2008 shall be 2012 all over again, but for the Republicans. After that, who knows? But I do know what comes in 2012.
Myra baby, let me sum it up for you: Sarah Palin can’t win! If that’s what you think, why not just say so? Hey, here’s an idea: Why don’t we give John McCain another chance? He could be the first two-time loser since Adlai Stevenson. Or how about . . .could we find another Bush? Yeah, it’s Jeb’s turn now. Maybe Mitt Romney if all else fails.
I think it all comes down to who the Republicans nominate for President in 2012. The American public is tired and no longer trusts “Hope and Change.” And no matter how hard Obama tries to change course from now on, the American public will NEVER forget what happened during the first two years of this guy’s administration, ESPECIALLY Obamacare and that trillion dollar “stimulus.” So if the Republicans can nominate an articlulate conservative that can honestly and intelligently put forth a realistic plan to reduce the deficit, significantly cut Federal spending, reduce taxes, and finally cut down on Federal regulations (especially on oil production), you will have a winner. Stick to conservative principles and you will have a winner, regardless of what state you’re in. Well, maybe not in New York, California, or Washington State, but everywhere else.
Sorry Myra, but picking a candidate on the “he can win” criterion only is what got us such tremendous losers ad Dole and McCain. Your doom and gloom is good cautionary advice, but your advice to “nominate a presidential candidate who can appeal to moderates and Independents” is something we conservatives have heard over and over when we get the back of the hand from the party elite. That plea doesn’t work anymore.
Exactly right. If the independents were so very important and if all they wanted was a “moderate” Republican, then McCain should have won by a landslide. He lost, big time. Republicans need to stop trying to become Democrats “light” and stick to their conservative roots. That’s why they did so well in 2010, they actually stood for something. The main stream media wants Republicans to think they need moderates like Dole and McCain to win in the general elections, when in fact they are nothing but losers.
Stick with conservatives and give people a real choice. If you do that, you’ll have a winner.
“The most important question for the 2012 election: can Republicans count on this fickle group of moderates and Independents to vote for the GOP presidential candidate in 2012 and turn Obama’s 2008 blue states red? For without their support in key states, the GOP will not be able to put together the winning coalition of 270 electoral votes necessary to win the White House.”
Independents are issue oriented. The Republicans will have to put forward a candidate who can articulate a coherent platform based on conservative principles if it is going to win. The rest is just politics.
What we need is another Reagan, someone who can inspire us out of this “malaise”, unite us, and provide the engine for our rebirth. No small order, and maybe impossible. For crying out loud, we put a man on the moon how many years ago???? And now we can’t produce anything here and are now talking about taxing plastic bags from shopping??
The government needs to get out of the way. THEY are the problem.
Interesting that all those “blue” states are losing electoral votes…hm, wonder why? Could it be that people that are just trying to survive are leaving in droves? And the remaining people still insist on voting for the very people that cause this?? Open your eyes to the simple facts people.
In this last election Toomey & Corbett lost Philly to their Dem opponents by about 290,000 votes.
In the ’04 & ’08 presidential elections the Republican lost the city to the Dem by 412,000 & 478,000 votes respectively.
Toomey won the state by about 80,000 votes so if the Dem passion in the city was the same as it was in the last two presidential years he probably would have lost.
Corbett, however, who won the state by 350,000 votes would still be governor.
In 2000, the margin of Republican defeat in Philly was 359,000. Toomey would have eked out a win with that tally.
Pa is not “solid blue” and is definitely winnable for Republicans.
Further, for the first time in memory, conservatives are actually making a play for the Philly vote
“”The answer is Republicans must nominate a presidential candidate who can appeal to moderates and Independents,”"
Oh you mean like McCain??? Or maybe Gerald Ford??? But certainly not like Reagan right.
You blow up your own argument: WI, OH, FL, PA all elected CONSERVATIVES, not moderates to Senate and Gov posts. In CO Buck came within a few thousand votes of winning and were it not for Tom Tancredo and the hapless GOV candidate for Gov, Buck woudl have won.
We tried it your way in 1976, 1996 and 2008. We lost each time
I’m a solib Republican, which I guess makes me a “moderate.” (In reality I consider myself hard on all my issues and not at all moderate, but one must accept one’s labels.) Here’s my political essence:
The fact that I vote Republican actually makes me fairly evolved among my friends, because they still don’t like this injection of religion into politics. They’d love to drop the Dems and vote for Giuliani or even Trump in a general election, but Evangelical-beholden Republicans will never give them that chance.
And now I’ll duck.
I agree. Republican pandering to the Christian Right likely costs them move votes than it gains them (except in the South). DeMint said one can’t be a fiscal conservative without being a social conservative. I think the reverse is the case – social conservatives are more likely to abandon fiscal conservatism so long as they can use government to impose their moral views from the top down. Just take a look at Huckabee.
The only play Republicans should make for the “socon” vote whould be consistent with a fiscal conservative agenda: appointing strict constructionist judges and eliminating federal funding for abortion and federal programs that advance a Statist agenda.
Other than that, they really should focus on public policy issues like spending and debt. Leave religion and morality to the churches where it belongs.
“I think the reverse is the case – social conservatives are more likely to abandon fiscal conservatism so long as they can use government to impose their moral views from the top down. Just take a look at Huckabee.”
Bzzzt. It’s interesting that you have to choose the ONE exception to the general rule, in order to make your case. Huck is a pro-life liberal, who calls himself a conservative. For a view of real social conservative’s fiscal bonafides, consider this:
“Don’t Blame Me – I Voted Conservative”
http://archive.redstate.com/story/2005/11/11/145253/48/
…and…
http://archive.redstate.com/stories/elections/2006/a_friendly_reminder_for_the_circular_firing_squad
On the Senate:
“the best indicator of whether a Senator is likely to support anti-pork measures like the Coburn amendments, is whether they also opposed government-funded embryo destruction or supported a constitutional amendment for the traditional definition of marriage”
And the House:
“The first interesting finding is that, of the 19 Republicans were seen as obstructionists to H. R. 4241 [ed: the anti-pork "Coburn" issue], only four of them (Johnson, Pickering, Jones and Ehlers) also voted with the majority of their Republican colleagues against the “Stem Cell Enhancement” (Embryo Destruction) bill. Similarly, less than half of these squishies voted with the majority of their colleagues on the Federal Marriage Amendment. The reality is that, while the RSC gets most of its press these days for being a “fiscally” conservative group of Congresspeople, they are in actuality just a “conservative” group of Congresspeople, and their conservatism stretches to all areas of government.”
Short answer: voting records indicate that the most fiscally conservative elected Republicans are also the most socially conservative ones; and the so-called “fiscally conservative but socially liberal” elected Republicans are basically just all-around liberals (to wit: the Maine Twins’ votes on just about any spending bill; etc).
Obviously, regular *VOTERS* can be solib+fiscon, but empirically it does not appear that this species exists *in elected office*. In that sense, DeMint was right: *on Capital Hill*, it certainly appears that you can’t be a fiscon unless you’re also a socon. Maybe one day such a beast will appear, but s/he hasn’t yet.
I so often hear this, about SoCons bugging folks. What exactly about the SoCon agenda bothers you?
Is it keeping marriage just for heteros, as it now is and always has been?
Perhaps our stance against abortion? Maybe you support guys like Tiller and this guy, Kermit? Yeah, we oughta stay out of that. Mm-hmm.
Maybe you do not like us wanting to RETURN prayer to school. Yeah, that would be just so bad! Really?
How about teaching of Creation alongside evolution? Yes, providing that perspective would be soooo harmful. Really?
Maybe you do not like us opposing gays in the military? Except most of the fighting troops are Conservative. Perhaps they should get to decide? Not the REMF’s, but the guys in the line. It seems the least we could do to support our troops.
The fact is, everyone who is nominally Republican who parrots this “It bugs me.” line, is unknowingly parroting the Leftist propaganda. The SoCon agenda is nothing more than preserving American social values. The Leftists are the ones who want to change the values. If they were not doing this, we SoCons would not have to fight them. We didn’t start this fight.
Now Mr. moderate Republican, what exactly is your problem with SoCons? How exactly will this affect you in negative fashion, huh? Answer me that. If the SoCons win, what exactly will change in your life for the worse?
#1 R.Mitchell – your post is something we really need to talk about. The best conservative candidate in the world can’t win in a close race…it ALWAYS goes to a democrat. Yet no one wants to take on that issue. We just sit back and let them steal elections over and over again. Can someone please just investigate these crooked voting tactics so the people pick the winner, not the crooks?
Republicans need to pull their head out of their a** and challenge all these dead voters, illegal voters, double/triple voters.
What I think you miss in this article is a review of recent changes.
The Elephant in the room – I know, a terrible pun – is the new health care law and public reactions to it.
Both Florida and Pennsylvania have large retiree populations. Seniors are being constantly reminded that Medicare is being looted by the new health law. My mother flipped from Democrat to Republican thanks to this law, and I find myself on the same political side as her for the first time in my life!
i think the health law, combined with enormous deficits and the failure of the Stimulus, has put the public in the mood for significant change.
Rick Scott won the Florida governorship narrowly over Alex Sink, and yet many centrists and even some conservatives considered him a dangerous lunatic(*). He won anyway, despite what I would think of as the best possible situation for a Democrat – an appealing, well-qualified person who ran a good campaign and even had some good ideas and vaguely fiscally conservative credentials. But Sink supported the health law and that probably doomed her campaign.
This feel good moment about the Arizona killer will dissipate. We might note the Republican Congress is enjoying much better reviews than normal too. Obama has tried to tack towards the center, and he might make it. But the health law continues to be an albatross around his neck, one voters will not forget – especially those in retiree-hevy states like Florida and Pennsylvania.
David
(*) I like Rick and think he’s a good man but there is no doubt the Sink campaign was effective in making many think he was not. We are talking perception here, not reality.
Darn, sorry, forgot the real conclusion.
RINOs are not likely to be popular this year, because the electorate would like to reverse Obamacare. To do that we need a non-squishy President, someone who leads based on principles.
Romney, for instance, would be a horrible candidate because of Massachusetts’ Romneycare, which is similar to Obamacare and looks like its results will be just as bad.
D
Same old repackaged crap here. To win national elections, the GOP must nominate a Democrat-lite.
You can take that tired old – even more outdated after 2010 – inside-the-Beltway crap and shove it where the light don’t shine.
You win national elections by nominating a strong candidate who actually has core values and doesn’t shift positions every time the wind changes directions. A lot of voters will go for a candidate they think they can believe even if they don’t agree with him or her on every issue instead of voting for a squishy, stands-for-everything-stands-for-nothing sort. It would also be nice if the GOP actually nominated someone who wants to WIN this time around, instead of another John McCain.
Take this squishy advice and go to work for a Democrat. That’s where you belong, Ms. Adams.
If the Republicans lose the White House, it won’t be because of demographic trends or Obama’s gifts reading a teleprompter. It will be because (so far) no potential nominee can unite the various wings of the party.
The establishment is embarrassed by Palin. They won’t support her and may even try to sabotage her campaign if she were the nominee. Romney is unacceptable to almost everyone EXCEPT the establishment. Huckabee would get votes from the Religious Right, but he’d lose votes from fiscal conservatives. Giuliani (a dark horse) would get votes from fiscal conservatives but lose the Bible Thumpers.
And so it goes. No matter who the nominee is, it’s likely that large swaths of the GOP base and/or establishment will be UNenthusiastic. That’s why I’m not optimistic for a GOP vicotory against Obama in 2012.
Who are fiscal conservatives going to vote for, Obama? No, they’ll vote for Huckabee, given that he cleaned up after Clinton’s mess and left Arkansas with a surplus. This is especially true given that he’ll be campaigning on a platform of the Fair Tax. Now there’s a radical idea- let’s take the entire tax code and throw it in the garbage, replacing it with something entirely different.
By 2016 Arkansas will be the near equivalent of 19th/early 20th century Ohio in terms of being the cradle of Presidents/Presidential Candidates. Expect a desperate Democratic Party to start propping up two-term Gov. Mike Beebe, particularly if there is an across the board Republican landslide in 2012.
The lesson of the 2010 election is Tucson.
The numbers are interesting, but rest assured that the career criminals of the left are not worried in the least about them. They know that Republicans have caps in their guns and that the master criminals will blow up the world if necessary to get their way.
The catch phrase “politics is not beanbag” is hopelessly obsolete. It should be replaced with “politics is not conventional war when the enemy has no morals or limits”.
David, your analysis of the candidates you mentioned is absolutely accurate. It would be great if PJM could facilitate such a thumbnail sketch of all the potential candidates. Let a reviewer post a short biography and then let the commenters rip, no holds barred.
As for this article by Myra Adams, the 2008 election had possibly the worst candidate the Republicans could nominate. All results have to to be understood in that context.
To (14) David Paitsel:
However, Palin keeps already a king-maker position. So, even if the establishment doesn’t support her, the establishment would do better to nominate an actual conservative with strong values, with integrity.
As an outsider,I know exactly what will win in 2012.
List the lies in BIG red letters. Then get someone the folk can TRUST to pin it up. There you have it,a republican house,senate,president.
This is why your wrong- if we don’t nominate a doctrinaire conservative, then even if we “win” we lose. We want to win, so we’ll show up. Even if we lose, at least we didn’t forfeit.
I just love the liberal meme that conservatives want to force their morals on people. Well Liberal do the same thing; they force their “no morals” on the rest of us along with abortion, GLBT agenda, and killing grandma. There are now grade school kids having sex in the classroom. If this is “progress” then I want no part of it.
A couple of things go against Obama. There is no more walking around money to spread around. Better enjoy your ipods and virtually free internet because the well is dry. And with babyboomers retiring every day they are putting a lot of pressure on social security and medicare.
The middle and upper wage earners as well as the seniors HATE the Obamacare law. We know these people generally vote. So Obama has a lot of angry seniors and others against him and congress (the few moderates that are left on the Dem side).
The jobless rate is expected to stay high. People are still losing their homes. Banks are still being closed. If you aren’t prosperous, are you likely to vote him back in?
Several states are passing laws to ensure that presidential candidates are “natural born citizens”. Since Obama is unwilling to disclose ANY documents including his birth certificate, medical records, school records, legal briefs/writings, what will he do about this requirement?
Inflation is raging in spite of the fact that the “published” inflation rate does not reflect this. The people who have jobs, especially at the lower end, plus all the people who rely on fixed incomes will be severely pressured. Will be get to the point where people can no longer feed themselves? Don’t know, but food and fuel prices are rising rapidly; expect clothing prices to follow. Can anyone who lived through the 80′s remember stagflation?
>>I just love the liberal meme that conservatives want to force their morals on people. Well Liberal do the same thing
That’s why I talk about social engineers, both conservative and liberal, upthread. Both sides have got ‘em. It’s a question of which ones you can stomach.
I talk to some Obama supporters and the enthusiasm is way down. I don’t look for the same number of youth voters this time. I don’t look for the same type of youth turnout as last time either. Also ,women voters support will be down. It was the independent vote what put Obama in the office. I don’t see see Independents putting him in again if the GOP has a good candidate. Romney or Pailin are not the ones. If McCain would have just split the Independent vote, he would have won despite a bad campaign. The healthcare law will be the issue that will keep Obama from a second term . Independents don’t like it by big margins. Also, the Democrat name brand has been badly damaged by Obama, Reid & Pelosi the last 2 years. That kind of damage can not be repaired by couple of speeches and interviews.. The independent voters will never forget that diaster that was forced on voters. I look for some referendum votes on the healthcare law in key states like Florida in November 2012.
Republicans will likely hold the House in 2012, and the numbers are such that they will most likely take the Senate (because the Democrats must defend so many seats in Red states). But this will likely help Obama, since not that many Independents want the same party controling the Presidency and both houses of Congress. I doubt the Republicans would have much chance to defeat Obama anyway, since the economy will likely be coming back (finally) by 2012. And, as some have noted, it always hurts the Republicans to have the kooky religious people so visible and sometimes driving the party’s agenda.
Not only that, it is probably to the Republican’s advantage NOT to repeal HC so quickly, lest it be done too quickly, with the attendant economic gains beginning to materialize in calendar 2012.
Frank Lee: It’s those “kooky religious people” that gave us a conservative House. The media would have you think that all people of “religion” are like the kooks they portray them (for their own political purposes) as backwoods, ignorant and unwashed. Nothing could be further from the truth for the majority of them. Notice that they never portray the east coast and west coast people with images of bums, drug addicts, sex perverts, etc. In spite of the fact that the majority of them are just that.
Fly over country is “the majority” and they are smarter than that, to think that religious extremism is the way to go. Otherwise we may as well be like the Muslims. O.K…no one is that bad. Funny how the left NEVER criticizes the Muslim RELIGIOUS KOOKS. Hmmmmm
I’m kamikazi – I’d rather be thrown under the bus by my adversary (democratic) than by one of my own (republican). If I’m going down, I’m going down swinging. Screw the centrist/moderate – I’ll take you down with me, if I can.
One of the main reasons that McCain lost in 2008 is because Republicans stayed home, as did any other voter to whom Obama was anathema but in whom Sarah Palin as VP evoked a visceral response. In Michigan, McCain was leading until he decided that Michigan was not worth the time in his campaign schedule. In short, he ticked off Michigan, so the GOP stayed home, and let the urban centers and legacy Democrats carry the state. So it was in much of the country, as Sarah was the last straw for a group of supporters only lukewarm to wishy-washy McCain to begin with.
Sarah Palin, for all of her good points, and she has many, is not electable. Just as Delaware did in the latest Senatorial primary when the GOP stayed home and let the Tea Party rule the day with unelectable Christine O’Donnell, if the GOP and the Tea Party want to hand a WH victory to the Democrats, along with coattail victories sure to follow due to just hitting that straight-ticket lever, then by all means let’s give Sarah either Pres or VP nomination. Otherwise, the GOP needs to look for someone less polarizing, and much more respected overall.
See reply #3 above.
What Republicans need to is nominate an anti war social liberal who happens to be fiscally conservative. Because those libertarians (who I happen to agree with on most issues) have a proven track record of winning elections. WWHHEEEEEEE!
Obama will probably win a second term, no matter who we throw at him. But it’s probably best for the Republicans not to rocket back into power in a matter of 3 years. Plus Obama won’t be able to accomplish much with the Republicans in control of the house, and in politics, it’s always better to be on the offense than defense. The economy might be slow for the next 5 years, and Obama and his policies will be constantly associated with it.
Obama is basically Arnold Schwarzzenager. The midterm was like Arnold’s disastrous special elections, but Arnold’s star power and move to center reelected him. By the end though, people were tired of his celebrity status, and ready to turn to someone else. It’s a circle of political life.
I guess I have a different view the 2012 elections. The white working class voters left the Democratic Party in huge numbers in 2010 elections. What is Obama doing attract these voters back. Nothing I see so far ? Are the pollsters using this information in their polls or just ignoring it ?
The pollsters are using it, they are also saying that Obama can still win with a coalition of minorities, youth vote, liberals, and women in 2012 when he targets specfic swing states.
I just visited http://www.270towin.com
They have the new electoral numbers, and I did a projection of the 2012 starting map. I figured which are Red state, Blue States, and Battleground states. This thing is in the bag, as long as we pick a limited-government nominee for the Pubs. The Pubs start out at 270, without any of the battle ground States.
They easily take back, IN, OH, VA, NC, FL, and (believe it or not) NM.
Battleground States are IA, MI, WI, PA, NH, ME.
I left in the Blue Camp CO & NV.
Actually, I expect NH to be a lock, too, but for its Blue history in the last 2 elections.
I just do not see a path to victory for the Dems.