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.
No doubt. First POTUS is lost for at least several more cycles, until the mainstream full takes back control of the party.
2nd GOP needed to get to 50 Senators in 2010. Seats like Engle's and O"Donnells were giveaways.
The GOP will be facing a 3-1 negative ratio in 2016 on Senate tossup seats. Short of getting to 55 in 2014, they would lose it back in 2016.
Those giveaways would have increased the 2016 margin of error.
Plus, without 60 Senate seats, no one has working control anyway.
These races are little more than ceremonial title races for so called Senate leader. No more meaningful than the Queen of England.
Exactly, @ 60 seats. However, there is one caveat--getting a majority in the Senate would put the kibosh on Pres. Obama's effforts to stack the federal courts. Since fed. judges get a life term, that is no small thing.
But as far as legislation is concerned, you are right.
As for your claim that "POTUS is lost [to the GOP] for at least several more cycles," file that under wishful thinking. It is ludicrous to flatly predict that either party will win the WH in 2016 when we don't even know who will be running, or what wars, scandals, and other unforeseen calamities might occur.
by a few points, and that is insufficient by far for the GOP. In the future, they must win independents by double digits.
Especially when they lose Latinos by well over 40%, plus single women by 36%.
Newsflash: Of the 3 voting blocks (indys/Dems/GOP), the GOP is, by far, the smallest.
Agreed...identity politics will be key in 2016, as it was in 2012. If Romney could have won just 30% of the non-white vote he would be President Romney today.
Neither the Huffington Post or National Journal links quote a single person bashing Nate Silver. In fact, the hyperlink that is supposed to link to the Democratic bashing him link to Nate Silvers own blog.
Did you read your articles before you posted them????? Both titles seem to be predictions rather than observations
As for your claim that "POTUS is lost [to the GOP] for at least several more cycles," file that under wishful thinking. It is ludicrous to flatly predict that either party will win the WH in 2016 when we don't even know who will be running, or what wars, scandals, and other unforeseen calamities might occur.
Not wishing it, but it is. 19 blue states since 1988 plus demographically blue now NM & Va start Dems at about 260.
21 red since 1988 start GOP at about 180.
That means Dems start needing just 1 of any 4 or 5 mid-size or bigger swing states, or 2 of the smaller ones , another 5 states.
GOP essentially must run the table. The odds are astronomically against the GOP running the table.
The mistake folks are making is in thinking the candidate messed up when, again and again, the 40 states behave as they do. The GOP problem is they do best in depopulated regions, and square miles do not get them extra electoral votes. They MUST work on converting some of the 19 blue since 1988. Think Northeast, Mid-Atlantic. Not the easy Southern base. That requires a different type of GOP, the kind Bob Dole would feel at home in, and the type the Rands would detest.
Agreed...identity politics will be key in 2016, as it was in 2012. If Romney could have won just 30% of the non-white vote he would be President Romney today.
If I was 7'2", I'd be an NBA center. 30% isn't going to happen..with any GOP ringbearer as of now.
With the TP's rhetoric, the GOP cannot do well except amongst rural white men and women. If their is a hyphon used with the demographic group, they get crushed. Now, when the mainstream GOP takes back the asylum from the inmates, their fate will improve.
Not wishing it, but it is. 19 blue states since 1988 plus demographically blue now NM & Va start Dems at about 260.
21 red since 1988 start GOP at about 180.
That means Dems start needing just 1 of any 4 or 5 swing states, or 2 of the smaller ones , another 5 states.
GOP essentially must run the table. The odds are astronomically against the GOP running the table.
The mistake folks are making is in thinking the candidate messed up when, again and again, the 40 states behave as they do. The GOP problem is they do best in depopulated regions, and square miles do not get them extra electoral votes.
This is an argument based on electoral math, but as Charlie Cook has pointed out, 53 of 56 (now 54 of 57) presidential elections have been won by the winner of the popular vote. Charlie Cook: Ignore The Electoral College Math
Electoral math does not matter in presidential elections, for the most part. We are still a 50-50 nation, so predictions for 2016 based on electoral math are suspect. Your previous point about identity politics was much more germane. If the GOP cannot figure out how to appeal to non-white voters, they are doomed in 2016. The key is demographics, not electoral math.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 25 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,561 posts, read 16,552,753 times
Reputation: 6043
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
This is an argument based on electoral math, but as Charlie Cook has pointed out, 53 of 56 (now 54 of 57) presidential elections have been won by the winner of the popular vote. Charlie Cook: Ignore The Electoral College Math
Electoral math does not matter in presidential elections, for the most part. We are still a 50-50 nation, so predictions for 2016 based on electoral math are suspect. Your previous point about identity politics was much more germane. If the GOP cannot figure out how to appeal to non-white voters, they are doomed in 2016. The key is demographics, not electoral math.
Umm,
1. 57 of 57 Presidential elections have been won by who ever won the electoral college.
2. Democrats are winning in the Demographics
3. We are not a 50/50 electorate. Population distribution proves that. If you simply believe that party identification is somewhat accurate then Democrats are winning by a mile, our base just doesnt vote as much.
Neither the Huffington Post or National Journal links quote a single person bashing Nate Silver. In fact, the hyperlink that is supposed to link to the Democratic bashing him link to Nate Silvers own blog.
Did you read your articles before you posted them????? Both titles seem to be predictions rather than observations
The DSCC is putting out statements calling out Silver for being wrong in the past. They loved him in 2012, but now are claiming you can't trust his predictions.
Quote:
In an unusual step, the executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee on Monday issued a rebuttal the famed statistician's prediction—made a day earlier—that Republicans were a "slight favorite" to retake the Senate. Silver was wrong in 2012, the political committee's Guy Cecil wrote in a memo, and he'll be wrong again in 2014. . .
But the comprehensive pushback from Cecil, the powerful committee's key staffer, is a testament both to the influence Silver wields and the sensitivity of Senate Democrats to the perception they're losing their grip on the upper chamber. . .
But in the memo, Cecil argues that Silver's track record is less than stellar.
This is an argument based on electoral math, but as Charlie Cook has pointed out, 53 of 56 (now 54 of 57) presidential elections have been won by the winner of the popular vote. Charlie Cook: Ignore The Electoral College Math
Electoral math does not matter in presidential elections, for the most part. We are still a 50-50 nation, so predictions for 2016 based on electoral math are suspect. Your previous point about identity politics was much more germane. If the GOP cannot figure out how to appeal to non-white voters, they are doomed in 2016. The key is demographics, not electoral math.
I disagree. Solve the electoral which means runnng a mainstream guy/woman who openly touts mainstream values during the conservative primary season and all the way to November, than, only than, does the demographic issue dissipate.
I honestly do not care about the first 50 elections. We are not a one tiny subset (white, land-owning males) voting nation anymore. The Edsel will come back before Ozzie and Harriet demographics will.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 25 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,561 posts, read 16,552,753 times
Reputation: 6043
Quote:
Originally Posted by brentwoodgirl
The DSCC is putting out statements calling out Silver for being wrong in the past. They loved him in 2012, but now are claiming you can't trust his predictions.
The only thing in that entire link that is quoted is the word "groundbreaking".
How is that saying you cant trust his predictions ???? The word ground breaking must mean something more to you ?
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.
