Talk:Blue wall (United States)

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance).

Opening Paragraph

The opening paragraph does not make sense as it is currently written. Between 1992 and 2012, Republican George W. Bush won the Presidential election in 2000 and 2004. We did not have to wait until 2016 to know the blue wall is not impenetrable. Vital Forces 2015 (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tabelle

Can someone make a table for the blue and red wall as in Solid South#Solid South in Presidential elections. Braganza (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Working... ―Mandruss ☎ 21:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Braganza: Done.[1] I invite anyone to check my work against the election articles and drop a note here that you have done so. Tedious work, but I would consider the table "unverified" until then, and you could stick a feather in your cap.

―Mandruss ☎ 04:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2012 or 2016

I want to write "won or almost won from 1992 to 2016" because Trump won Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by <1%. Bernspeed (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Close only counts in horseshoes, as they say. To single out those 3 as being basically close enough yet ignore the times some only went blue by similarly small margins smacks of POV. The blue wall was narrowly breached in 3 states in 2016. There's really no getting around that. -R. fiend (talk) 05:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty unclear

What is “The Republican party has won just 13 states in each of the last 7 election cycles, totaling 102 electoral votes.” supposed to mean? I don’t get it.Rich (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I struggle as well. It would make more sense as: "The Republican Party has won just 13 of the blue wall states in the last eight presidential election cycles." That's ten states in 1988 and three in 2016, as shown in the table at Blue wall (politics)#In presidential elections. Who knows, maybe the 13 even total 102 electoral votes, I can't be bothered to check. Since (1) the sentence's intent is unclear, (2) the sentence has no citation, and (3) such matters are conveyed clearly enough in the table, I'm removing the sentence as unsourced. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph was clearly referring to the red sea:

A similar "red wall/sea," behind which lie states solidly Republican, has also been posited to exist[by whom?]. But, having fewer votes, it would be theoretically easier for a Democratic presidential candidate to win without breaching the red sea. The Republican party has won just 13 states in each of the last 7 election cycles, totaling 102 electoral votes. [editor's note: original post was 5 August 2020 therefore most recent election with results would have been 2016's United States election]

The sentence is referring to the thirteen states that the Republican party has won each time (1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016) in the last seven election cycles:

Texas (38), Alabama (9), South Carolina (9), Oklahoma (7), Mississippi (6), Utah (6), Kansas (6), Nebraska (5), Idaho (4), South Dakota (3), North Dakota (3), Alaska (3), and Wyoming (3)

Add up the electoral college votes of those thirteen states, and you get 38+9+9+7+6+6+6+4+4+3+3+3+3=102 electoral college votes. 64.229.89.241 (talk) 07:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding or mentioning other states

I was wondering if we should add, or at least mention, the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, New Hampshire, and Nevada to this article. It appears these states are generally becoming safe blue states while PA, WI, and MI are becoming more competitive. Would it be appropriate to mention these states as possibly becoming part of the blue wall?

-User:Thegayfrenchbullie123 (talk) 2:45, 18 November 2020 (EST)

No, because the "Blue Wall" is by definition: ["Blue wall" is a term used by political pundits to refer to 18 U.S. states and the District of Columbia that the Democratic Party consistently won in presidential elections between 1992 and 2012.] In elections that come after 2021, it is likely that Colorado, New Mexico and Virginia will become "safe states" for the Democratic Party column. Certainly, Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia will be easier for the Democratic Party to win than Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan going forward from 2021. However, Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia will not be part of the Blue Wall because they did not consistently vote for the Democratic Party from 1992 to 2012. They (Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia) will just simply be "safe states" for the Democrats going forward from 2021. 64.229.89.241 (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Should not this article be renamed something like Blue walls and red walls (United States politics), or something since we have a section about the read wall/sea? The same way we do for Red states and blue states. Davide King (talk) 09:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not too sure. "Blue wall" has been used a lot in the last two election cycles, whereas it doesn't seem "red wall" or "red sea" has been so much. What sources can you find? -R. fiend (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

R. fiend, it is very simple. If we are going to have a section about it and bold red wall in the lead, then the article should be renamed. If the main topic is only about the blue wall, than the section about the red wall should be removed. Davide King (talk) 10:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The red wall is practically a footnote here. Unless it gets a lot more coverage I see no reason to change the name. And even if that does happen a separate article might be more appropriate. I'm not even sure a mention of the red wall belongs in the lead, to be honest. -R. fiend (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bigger question: why isn't this just a section in Red states and blue states? Why does this require an entirely separate article? --Khajidha (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

adding a section about 2022?

There are some articles that mention the blue wall for the 2022 United States elections, such as:

if this isn't necessary, then understandable, but idk it could work? 98.59.80.64 (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's 2016 Electoral Votes

The article says he won 306 electoral votes. He won 304 electoral votes and had 2 faithless electors. EvanJ35 (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada and New Hampshire

The article mentions that the blue wall has shifted from containing all states (except New Hampshire) that John Kerry won in 2004 and replaced Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin with Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia. However, I feel Nevada and New Hampshire are being overlooked. They seem to be in the same position as the three states mentioned as being added to the blue wall after 2004, having voted for the Democratic candidate in every election since then. The only Republican either of them has voted for in the past eight elections is George W. Bush, New Hampshire once in 2000 and Nevada both times. Should we not mention them as new blue wall states alongside Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia? If not, why?

(EDIT: I've realized that the reason why Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia in particular are mentioned is because Biden carried them by over 10%. Nevada and NH were closer, so their exclusion makes sense.) YeetusDeletusYT (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You will need a source for the additions.

- According to United States presidential elections in Nevada: Nevada voted for the Democratic candidates in 1880, 1896-1900, 1908-1916, 1932-1948, 1960-1964, 1992-1996, 2008-2020. It has often switched between parties in the last 140 years, despite serving as a Democratic stronghold for much of its history. Dimadick (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- According to United States presidential elections in New Hampshire: New Hampshire voted for the Democratic candidates in 1832-1852, 1912-1916, 1936-1944, 1964, 1992-1996, 2004-2020. Despite the state's once fanatical support for Andrew Jackson, it became a Republican stronghold in 1856 and nearly always supported Republican candidates until the 1980s. It has only become reliably Democratic since Bill Clinton's term in office. Dimadick (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  True, Nevada and NH have historically never been reliably Democrat. However, most blue wall states historically haven't been reliably Democratic. Notably, there's Vermont, which holds what I believe may actually be the record for the longest streak any state has had of voting the same political party. The party in question was the Republicans, which Vermont voted for from 1856 to 1960. 27 elections, over a century of nonstop Republican dominance. The Republicans had the most reliable stronghold in the electoral history of the US, and yet, that state is now part of the blue wall. It doesn't exactly take a huge amount of precedent for states to be considered part of the blue wall. YeetusDeletusYT (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other "Red Wall" states?...

I think it would make sense to reconsider which states are included in the "Red Wall" list....

Indiana, in particular, should definitely be included. After many cycles of voting Republican in Presidential elections, it did narrowly vote for Obama in 2008, but this was arguably something of a fluke - the result of Obama winning by a rather large margin overall, combined with the fact that he was based in Chicago, just across the border. Since 08, Indiana has reverted to being solidly Republican, and in fact is now more so than a number of the states included on the list.

I would also consider including three other states, which used to be considered very much swing-states, but which are now pretty solidly Republican: Iowa, Ohio, and Florida. The latter, in particular, had been known for razor-thin margins, but if the 2022 gubernatorial election is any indication, it seems that it's a state Republicans are likely to consistently win for the next few decades, unless it's an election where the Dems are heavily overperforming.

Keep in mind that the orientation of states often does change over time. Missouri used to be considered the quintessential "bellwether," but now it's a solidly "red" state. West Virginia used to be solidly "blue," but now is one of the country's reddest. Conversely, California used to be very "red," and now is one of the bluest. -2003:CA:870F:1693:3116:92A9:37DD:F47E (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia dies not make these calculations on its own, it needs sources. Dimadick (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"2020: Resurgence of the blue wall" section...

I'm thinking it could make sense to rethink this section, or at least present an alternative narrative....

It seems to me that a more straight forward explanation is that WI, MI, and PA aren't "Blue Wall" states anymore at all. They're swing states, and in fact are widely considered swing states by most media these days. They went narrowly for Trump in 2016, then narrowly for Biden in 2020, and then narrowly for Trump again in 2024. This is classic "swing state" behavior - swinging back and forth. There wasn't any "resurgence" of the wall in those states in 2020. Biden simply did a bit better than Hillary Clinton, and narrowly won these three swing states, which are no longer part of any "wall." -2003:CA:8702:9C19:B4ED:4F52:F5E7:93C9 (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]