Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
please, everybody knows that whoever wins the swing states of Ohio, Florida and Virginia will win the WH .......those states neither party have a lock since GOP governors have won there.
that's why both parties spend millions campaigning in those states and ignore the majority of the nation, a big flaw in out electorate system.
Quote:
As Republicans gear up to “take back the White House” conservatives need to be aware of one startling fact: in 2012 if Romney had won the three swing states of Ohio, Florida, and Virginia, he still would have lost the election.
If you want to explore this new reality, check out 2016 Presidential Election Interactive Map and History of the Electoral College. There you can play around with the interactive map and plot out your favorite candidate’s path to 270.
For instance, let’s look at Wisconsin, with its 10 electoral votes. Every four years the Republican mindset says Wisconsin will be a swing state. Then, a few months into the campaign the state loses it’s coveted “battleground” status as polls begin to show its “blue” reality. The truth is that not since 1984, when Reagan won in a landslide against Walter Mondale, has Wisconsin seen red.
Or take Pennsylvania, with 20 electoral votes, and New York, with 29—both have been blue since Bill Clinton won them in 1992, and blue they will remain.
Then there’s the mega-rich electoral state of California with its 55 votes that turned red for the last time in 1988 when George H.W. Bush won that “California guy” Reagan’s “third term.”
After totaling the electoral votes in all the terminally blue states, an inconvenient math emerges, providing even a below average Democrat presidential candidate a potential starting advantage of 246. Here are the states and their votes:
CA (55), NY (29), PA (20), IL (20), MI (16), NJ (14), WA (12), MA (11), MN (10), WI (10), MD (10), CT (7), OR (7), HI (4), ME (4), NH (4), RT (4), VT (3), DE (3), DC (3).
Let me repeat, if only for the shock value: 246 votes out of 270 is 91 percent. That means the Democrat candidate needs to win only 24 more votes out of the remaining 292. (There are a total of 538 electoral votes.)
With this in mind, David Plouffe, Obama’s chief campaign strategist, predicted in June 2011 that Obama would win over 300 electoral votes. Plouffe stated his early prediction to Dan Balz of The Washington Post and it appears in Balz’s new book, Collision, about the 2012 campaign.
No wonder President Obama was so confident of victory in 2012, for he knew the game was practically over before it began. In case you need reminding, the final Electoral College score was a lopsided 332–206.
The Republican Party leadership, well aware of this depressing math, is now making an attempt to change the rules of the game by supporting an effort whereby states would proportionally award their electoral votes to the popular vote winner in each congressional district.
It is obvious that discarding the current “winner take all” system would vastly improve the prospects of electing a Republican president. But first, this initiative must pass state legislatures before reaching a governor’s desk, where it may or may not be signed into law.
There is some precedent here—the states of Nebraska and Maine are already using this method. However, it is unlikely that more states will follow Nebraska and Maine because this drastic change is politically “too hot to handle” for most governors, even Republican ones.
- See more at: Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever? - The Daily Beast
I think you have a history of posting non factual replies on City-Data. You don't bother to research anything, and instead you rather argue what you think, feel, and hope. You're just in denial. Democrats have a huge head start with the electoral system, and it's not looking so good for the GOP in 2016. You all can not win if you continue to run on what you hate about half of America, how stupid they are for having a different opinion, and how much better you are than them... Go to the main "politics-other-controversies" forum and you'll see that that's all you guys do all day long is complain about and attack the president and different groups of people. That's all you all do during elections. Other than social issues, I do not know what Republicans believe or stand for, but without any doubts, I know what and who Republicans can't stand...
Last edited by DoniDanko; 09-13-2013 at 11:24 AM..
With the looming demise of the GOP, I see a few decades of prosperity and middle class economic growth. Probably accompanied, not unrelated, by a steady increase in union memberships as well.
I agree with the OP that if the GOP keeps contracting into a smaller, older, and more narrow-minded and mean-spirited bunch of cranks, it will not win. When you can do no wrong, ever, you cannot learn. That is their problem, I think. That, and the feeling that they seem to viscerally hate and distrust just about anyone except the true believers in their party.
No, the Republican Party will not win another election in the United States of America unless the Republican Party:
(1) focuses less on socially conservative issues like gays, guns, and abortion, even goes so far as to support gay marriage and a "woman's right to choose" to have an abortion; supports background checks for guns.
(2) secures the Hispanic vote while at the same time deals with illegal immigration.
Are those two steps possible for the Republican Party?
I think they are possible.
Race and ethnicity were the determining demographic factor in votes for Obama, across all age groups and genders in 2012. Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians voted in larger numbers for Obama, while whites voted in larger numbers for Romney.
It was not the "economy" as the central issue when people voted for in 2012. By objective measures, Obama has done a terrible job with the economy that he owns, and blacks and Hispanics have suffered the most. The reason they voted for Obama had more to do with either completely hating the other more white candidate, or affiliating more closely with the minority candidate.
Explaining anything to the GOP is a rather futile endeavor as they continue to drift even more to the extreme right all the while alienating even more demographics that could constitute a more diverse base..
As long as the GOP continue to follow the needs of the Tea/hate Party and give credence to RWNJ media outlets such as FOX and people like Limbaugh they will find a very limited amount of success and a whole lot of Failure as they no longer represent Americas voting majority.
Explaining anything to the GOP is a rather futile endeavor as they continue to drift even more to the extreme right all the while alienating even more demographics that could constitute a more diverse base..
As long as the GOP continue to follow the needs of the Tea/hate Party and give credence to RWNJ media outlets such as FOX and people like Limbaugh they will find a very limited amount of success and a whole lot of Failure as they no longer represent Americas voting majority.
What little success they can claim is to thwart any efforts to do anything productive. The cynicism has reached such a level that in Tea Party circles, hobbling the country and helping the rich to get richer are their banners of success.
What little success they can claim is to thwart any efforts to do anything productive. The cynicism has reached such a level that in Tea Party circles, hobbling the country and helping the rich to get richer are their banners of success.
LMAO!!! And the Democrat Party doesn't help big business and Wall Street get richer.......Obama has been in office for 5 years with a Democrat Senate, how is that working out?
LMAO!!! And the Democrat Party doesn't help big business and Wall Street get richer.......Obama has been in office for 5 years with a Democrat Senate, how is that working out?
Why dont you tell us how its working out and why..
please, everybody knows that whoever wins the swing states of Ohio, Florida and Virginia will win the WH .......those states neither party have a lock since GOP governors have won there.
that's why both parties spend millions campaigning in those states and ignore the majority of the nation, a big flaw in out electorate system.
Those three would have given Romney a total of 266 electoral votes. Nice try, but again you failed math.
266 would have given MR the same defeat he suffered 11/2/2012.
Those three would have given Romney a total of 266 electoral votes. Nice try, but again you failed math.
266 would have given MR the same defeat he suffered 11/2/2012.
and now you are math genius, LMAO .....obviously if those states go for 1 candidate other small swing states like Iowa, NH would go to.
again, you make it sound like the Democrats have a lock in those states when Obama won re-election in those states by less than 3%.
and you ignore Obama won re-election by 5 million less votes than in 2008, you think the democrats will make it up in 2016? based on what?...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
