What's the best Republican path to 270 EV and victory? (racist, Americans, party)
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.
I wanted to add to an earlier post that I place on this thread about suggesting the GOP target certain metro areas in states: Now, I am a Pittsburgh native but have not lived there for 30 years. I have many clients of my business and of course a lot of family there all very liberal. One commentary I get across the board is their disdain for the Dems appearance to advocate the legalization of marijuana. Of my contacts in Pittsburgh, 2/3 tell me that that will be the final straw voting Democrat. Now, I think about that and all the commentary from the liberal community here about how the GOP has to embrace, among a litany of other issues, pot legalization if they wish to be relevant, yet, today a relative told me it was actually the evil GOP who wanted to legalize pot based on a flyer from Doyle stating he was the true candidate to ramp up the war on drugs, as opposed to the GOP candidate who was lax on that issue. Now, if a 13 year Democrat congressman from Pittsburgh needs to campaign that he is anti drug, how does that play with all the posts that the GOP needs to embrace pot to stay relevant. And this brings me back to my original point: I think, right now, if the GOP campaigned heavily in places where you had demographically a heavy Roman Catholic/Liberal/mid 30's to mid 50's vote like Pittsburgh/Boston, and such, you may make some serious inroads to that Blue Wall, because right now in PA it's blue Pittsburgh/Philadelphia vs the red rest of the state. Flip metro Pittsburgh, which is rapidly becoming more upscale white collar anyway and maybe you will flip PA. Seriously, Pittsburghers are really unhappy with Dems embrasure of pot.
Interesting. I wouldn't have picked pot legalization as a make or break issue. Abortion, gay marriage, immigration reform and healthcare would probably have more impact, at least in my view. I would think pot legalization would probably more likely be a state level issue. Pennsylvania is likely to be a crucial state for the GOP to turn though to make up for probable losses in other states.
I think, right now, if the GOP campaigned heavily in places where you had demographically a heavy Roman Catholic/Liberal/mid 30's to mid 50's vote like Pittsburgh/Boston, and such, you may make some serious inroads to that Blue Wall, because right now in PA it's blue Pittsburgh/Philadelphia vs the red rest of the state. Flip metro Pittsburgh, which is rapidly becoming more upscale white collar anyway and maybe you will flip PA. Seriously, Pittsburghers are really unhappy with Dems embrasure of pot.
I doubt you could flip the RCC vote. I grew up going to RCC schools, and amongst RCC people. The RCC flock is much more "pro choice" than the church elders would like to believe. The RCC flock are largely of European ancestry (many have grandparents at most one gen removed from Ellis Island) , so the anti immigration harsh tone of the GOP-pandering to the TP-turns them off.
They may be less pro marijuana legalization than other groups, but honestly, it is an issue very low on their radar. They are also very difficult voters to flip. It takes a long history of a party's nominees getting it, living it, advocating it, whatever the issue, to convince them your "new latest theme" is not simply more pandering.
Pa is where the GOP wastes their money. It isn't Philly killing them-it is the RCC Philly suburbs which , by income level, you'd expect to be reddish, but much like CT burbs I grew up around with similar incomes, are more purple in tone than would have been the case-if ONLY the GOP had ignored social conservatism, and focused solely on economic conservatism.
Bob, Some excellent points. What is your take on the RCC crowd and gay marriage? And again, it legal pot is such a low issue, why do we have Pittsburgh Dems accusing GOP candidates of being the pro drug choice in order to score points. I had a liberal relative from Pittsburgh in tears tonight over what's going on in Colorado and how it was the end of the US, and I could not convince her that it was a "liberal" thing, only because of all the campaign literature about Pittsburgh Dems being the war on drugs choice. You got 2.3 Million Pennsylvanians voting Dem because they are the "anti gay marriage" , "pro gun ownership" and "anti legal pot" choice. The HAS to be some kind of opportunity here.
Bob, Some excellent points. What is your take on the RCC crowd and gay marriage? .
By and large the RCC flock is quite tolerant, so same sex marriage issues would neither attract nor repel votes from them.
The church leadership can try to be less tolerant, but after the pedophilia scandals of recent decades, the flock doesn't simply nod and concur with everything they say anymore. pedophilia and the RCC was like Watergate and Nixon. It destroyed their credibility, one empty pew at a time, most likely, for many generations. That includes the attitudes of even those who will be kneeling Sunday morning. Some of the implicit trust is , long-term, DOA.
PS: The scariest thing about that Blue Wall is, if the GOP does nothing to truly change, demographics will widen the Blue Wall margins one state at a time. The burbs inside large metro MTSAs are increasing in popularity, and as they do, larger percentages of each state's votes will come within MTSAs that tend to favor the more tolerant party.
I doubt you could flip the RCC vote. I grew up going to RCC schools, and amongst RCC people. The RCC flock is much more "pro choice" than the church elders would like to believe. The RCC flock are largely of European ancestry (many have grandparents at most one gen removed from Ellis Island) , so the anti immigration harsh tone of the GOP-pandering to the TP-turns them off.
They may be less pro marijuana legalization than other groups, but honestly, it is an issue very low on their radar. They are also very difficult voters to flip. It takes a long history of a party's nominees getting it, living it, advocating it, whatever the issue, to convince them your "new latest theme" is not simply more pandering.
Pa is where the GOP wastes their money. It isn't Philly killing them-it is the RCC Philly suburbs which , by income level, you'd expect to be reddish, but much like CT burbs I grew up around with similar incomes, are more purple in tone than would have been the case-if ONLY the GOP had ignored social conservatism, and focused solely on economic conservatism.
I was dazzled by the Ron Paul effect for a while there, but when you turn off Fox, Limbaugh, and Alex Jones, you suddenly see that the GOP still makes it too easy to attract the knuckle-dragging racists from the Red states. It's not obvious immediately, but the dog whistle language is there. Even younger whites in increasing numbers won't vote for a party that is dominated by racist voters. This is also why southern European, and some northern European, RCC voters will not vote for the GOP. Catholics have been panned, discriminated against in the past by right-wing Protestant Americans in the past who now vote for the GOP in large numbers. The GOP is hopeless, no matter what they do, they can't erase the image they have of racist, anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish, xenophobic bigotry that dominates their party. Even if they decide to embrace the gays, demographics will still spell their doom and transform them into a regional party dominated by a hateful and vengeful segment of Anglo-Saxon Southerners who yearn for the return of the Confederacy.
The worst part of it all is, there are a lot of good conservative voters out there. But, they are afraid of speaking out against the cozy racists in the GOP. They just hide in denial, at least Collin Powell was brave enough to speak out against the GOP's "vein of intolerance". Of course, after he said that, he was called the usual liberal fascist, communist, socialist, etc. that we've all come to expect
I was dazzled by the Ron Paul effect for a while there, but when you turn off Fox, Limbaugh, and Alex Jones, you suddenly see that the GOP still makes it too easy to attract the knuckle-dragging racists from the Red states. It's not obvious immediately, but the dog whistle language is there. Even younger whites in increasing numbers won't vote for a party that is dominated by racist voters. This is also why southern European, and some northern European, RCC voters will not vote for the GOP. Catholics have been panned, discriminated against in the past by right-wing Protestant Americans in the past who now vote for the GOP in large numbers. The GOP is hopeless, no matter what they do, they can't erase the image they have of racist, anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish, xenophobic bigotry that dominates their party. Even if they decide to embrace the gays, demographics will still spell their doom and transform them into a regional party dominated by a hateful and vengeful segment of Anglo-Saxon Southerners who yearn for the return of the Confederacy.
Bingo
The GOP didn't capture and convert the South. The South recreated the GOP in its own image, and the change isn't that attractive to most of the rest of the country.
. It's not obvious immediately, but the dog whistle language is there. Even younger whites in increasing numbers won't vote for a party that is dominated by racist voters. This is also why southern European, and some northern European, RCC voters will not vote for the GOP. Catholics have been panned, discriminated against in the past by right-wing Protestant Americans in the past who now vote for the GOP in large numbers.
Amen. The Catholics were at one point the main target of the KKK. They do recognize the "dog whistle" tones you talk about. The reality is David Duke supporters did not die. They are a distinct minority but they returned where they had been before-the GOP of the Southeast.
Until the GOP ignores the Southeast (taking its votes for granted), and by that I mean stops pandering to the "dog whistle" crowd you speak of, until they sound like progressive Republicans focused on economic conservatism are welcome, the Blue Wall will continue to crush the Confederacy in elections for POTUS. 241 beats 180 every single time. Add in Va & NM which will stay blue now, so the game is truly 260 Dems to 180 GOP in that race to 270 before a single swing state is contested. By 2020, either SC, Ga, or both would have joined Va and NM, and they will be blue at that point.
There is not a single state trending blue to red. NONE.
If the blue wall is as formidable as many state, and I do believe them, would it nor be less expensive and more effective to divert Presidential $$ to the Senate? Heck for what it costs the RNC fro a Presidential campaign, they could buy a good 6-8 Senate seats that they would normally not get.
If the blue wall is as formidable as many state, and I do believe them, would it nor be less expensive and more effective to divert Presidential $$ to the Senate? Heck for what it costs the RNC fro a Presidential campaign, they could buy a good 6-8 Senate seats that they would normally not get.
In 2016, there are probably (vacancies can, but probably won't, increase this number) going to be 10 Democratic Senate seats up for election. Thinking the Republicans can take 6-8 of those - and hold all 24 seats they have up for election - is, shall we say, rather optimistic.
Oh, and those 10 states?
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Hawaii
Maryland
Nevada
New York
Oregon
Washington
Vermont
No amount of money is going to flip 6-8 of those seats. Frankly, the GOP is going to have its hands full keeping losses to a minimum. 2010 was a wave election - it washed into office a lot of candidates who would not otherwise get elected. The Republicans are going to need every dollar trying to hold seats in blue states such as Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Wisconsin.
In 2016, there are probably (vacancies can, but probably won't, increase this number) going to be 10 Democratic Senate seats up for election. Thinking the Republicans can take 6-8 of those - and hold all 24 seats they have up for election - is, shall we say, rather optimistic.
Oh, and those 10 states?
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Hawaii
Maryland
Nevada
New York
Oregon
Washington
Vermont
No amount of money is going to flip 6-8 of those seats. Frankly, the GOP is going to have its hands full keeping losses to a minimum. 2010 was a wave election - it washed into office a lot of candidates who would not otherwise get elected. The Republicans are going to need every dollar trying to hold seats in blue states such as Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Wisconsin.
I think the neo-Confederates are overestimating their popularity. They are becoming more of a liability than an asset. I agree with you as well, good luck to the GOP flipping seats in those states, not gonna happen. I can see Colorado probably flipping, but nothing else. Despite Harry Reid being the #1 target of the right-wing noise machine for many years now, and he's still there.
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.
