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.
it doesnt. we know the white vote will go 55-58 republican to 42-45 dem.
If the Democrats get 42% of the white vote, it's over.
President Obama got only 39% of the white vote in 2012, and he won by a fairly comfortable margin of 4% in the popular vote and carried 62 more Electoral College votes than he needed.
By 2016, the white vote as a share of the electorate will drop another 2% (as it always does, as the nation gets less white). Even if the Democratic candidate carries 40% of the white vote, the Republican candidate will have to massively eat into the minority vote share to win the race. And that is clearly not going to happen.
Such are the demographic realities.
Will Clinton, if she is the nominee (and she probably will be), campaign with President Obama? Yes. Will she need to? No.
2008 and 2012 have proven that the white vote doesnt matter.
Obama only won by 4 points in 2012, and in the same election whites comprised 72% of the electorate, which means that they do matter. It is now possible to win while badly losing the white vote, but you just can't win without significant white support. You can play around with the 2012 demographics using this nifty tool - in reality Obama carried 40% of the two-party white vote in 2012, which added onto the minority base was enough to eke out a convincing victory. However, if Obama's share of the white vote was just 3 points lower (37%) he would have lost the popular vote, and if his share was 4 points lower (36%) he would have also lost in the electoral college.
If Republicans continue to gain white voters at the rate they did in the past few election cycles, they could deliver some nasty surprises in 2016 and 2020, even if the white share of the electorate declines. I also think that Republicans should be wary of the possibility that their share of the white vote has been maxed out; however, it seems to me that a gain of a few points is within reach. The conventional wisdom is "Hispanics, Hispanics, Hispanics", but in isolation just getting their share of the Hispanic vote to 2004 levels will not be sufficient. In any scenario it would help, though, and it is necessary for the health of the party over the long term. Ditto for other minorities. Rand Paul's idea of contesting the black vote is interesting; if in isolation the Democratic share of the black vote declines to 75% (the share they got from 1932-1960), Florida, Virginia, Ohio, and North Carolina all get a lot redder. Is such a strategy feasible? Probably not, at least not by 2016, but it is interesting.
In closing, the Democratic "formula" for victory at the Presidential level is to run up huge margins across all minority groups and keep their share of the white vote in the high 30's. If the huge margins decline in hugeness, or if the share of the white vote drops below the high 30's, then the formula breaks down and Democrats lose.
Obama only won by 4 points in 2012, and in the same election whites comprised 72% of the electorate, which means that they do matter. It is now possible to win while badly losing the white vote, but you just can't win without significant white support. You can play around with the 2012 demographics using this nifty tool - in reality Obama carried 40% of the two-party white vote in 2012, which added onto the minority base was enough to eke out a convincing victory. However, if Obama's share of the white vote was just 3 points lower (37%) he would have lost the popular vote, and if his share was 4 points lower (36%) he would have also lost in the electoral college.
If Republicans continue to gain white voters at the rate they did in the past few election cycles, they could deliver some nasty surprises in 2016 and 2020, even if the white share of the electorate declines. I also think that Republicans should be wary of the possibility that their share of the white vote has been maxed out; however, it seems to me that a gain of a few points is within reach. The conventional wisdom is "Hispanics, Hispanics, Hispanics", but in isolation just getting their share of the Hispanic vote to 2004 levels will not be sufficient. In any scenario it would help, though, and it is necessary for the health of the party over the long term. Ditto for other minorities. Rand Paul's idea of contesting the black vote is interesting; if in isolation the Democratic share of the black vote declines to 75% (the share they got from 1932-1960), Florida, Virginia, Ohio, and North Carolina all get a lot redder. Is such a strategy feasible? Probably not, at least not by 2016, but it is interesting.
In closing, the Democratic "formula" for victory at the Presidential level is to run up huge margins across all minority groups and keep their share of the white vote in the high 30's. If the huge margins decline in hugeness, or if the share of the white vote drops below the high 30's, then the formula breaks down and Democrats lose.
you also have to remember alot of those solid R white votes are dying off. the 25-54 demo of whites i bet is a near 50/50 split between republican democrat.
so that built in advantage with white voters will go away when the 65 + whites die off. i don't see the 25-54 white vote going 61 rep 39 dem.
Sure, but only if Hillary wants this favor to be returned.
that is it exactly: Will she want his support? Will he be considered someone to listen to and respect or by then, will his name be so damaged she feels she can do better without him.
Hard to say now. Obama owes Hillary and respects her, but a lot would depend on what's going on at the moment in 2016. He will still be on the job after all.
And all this depends on Hillary running in the first place. I am not convinced at all that she will run.
For whatever reason a lot of right wingers have this fantasy that Obama is some toxic name throughout the country. Yes, his name is toxic in the deep south, but what right wingers (still) don't understand is that the presidential election is a NATIONAL campaign. Obama will be campaigning will Hillary as he is (and will be in 2016) generally liked.
And why would Hillary distance herself from Obamacare? She was for a MORE progressive healthcare solution. Do you think she is going to campaign on rolling back Obamacare? If anything she will campaign on expanding it or making it single payer.
I hope she does campaign with him. It will be like throwing two anchors overboard at the same time.
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.
