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.
Rather than debating policy for the moment, which states are critical to the GOP winning in 2016 and beyond?
I'm curious what combination of states you think are necessary to win in 2016 and then which candidate gives the Republicans the best chance of making that a reality and why.
Rather than debating policy for the moment, which states are critical to the GOP winning in 2016 and beyond?
I'm curious what combination of states you think are necessary to win in 2016 and then which candidate gives the Republicans the best chance of making that a reality and why.
It's all about the numbers.
First, the Red Wall (ie, all states that Romney, McCain and Bush - twice - won): AL, AK, AR, AZ, GA, ID, KS, KY, LA, MO, MS, MT, ND, NE, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY. Note: I am not considering NE-2, which Obama won in 2008. During redistricting it was made even more pro-Republican, and in any race in which a GOP nominee approaches 270 EC votes, it should easily go Republican. Anyway, this totals 180 EC votes.
Second, secure IN and NC. These are two states that Obama narrowly won in 2008, but are still essentially Republican states. While NC does seem to be moving steadily to the left, that change is gradual and it should be redder than the national electorate for at least another couple Presidential cycles. That's another 26 EC votes, which brings the total to 206.
Third, secure the two major swing states of FL and OH. Though President Obama twice won each, he did so narrowly, and each time by a margin less than that of his national margin. This suggests that while these are purple states, their purplish hue is slightly more red than blue. These states have 47 EC votes, which brings the GOP to 253.
Now, it gets difficult. The low-hanging fruit is gone and our imaginary Republican Presidential nominee needs seventeen more votes in the Electoral College.
So, fourth: Virginia. This state has been steadily moving to the left. In 2012, President Obama carried it by almost exactly the same margin as he carried the national vote. If this trend persists - and given the election of McAuliffe as Governor in 2013, the first time since 1973 that a member of the party that controls the White House managed to win the statehouse in Virginia, it appears that it will indeed continue - then Virginia is going to continue getting more blue and less red. Still, at least for an election or two, it should at least hypothetically remain within the grasp of a good Republican Presidential candidate. Virginia has 13 EC votes. That brings it to 266.
Fifth, one more state is needed. Virginia will be tough enough - the final state will be even tougher. New Mexico? Nevada? They've lurched fairly strongly into the Democratic camp. Colorado? New Hampshire? Iowa? Obama has carried each of them twice, and by no less than 1.5% better than he did nationally. They'll be tough to pry away. Michigan? That's just a fantasy. Wisconsin? After flirting with the GOP in '00 and '04, it has gone strongly left twice, even with native son Paul Ryan on the ticket in 2012. Pennsylvania? Tantalizing, but it always runs at least a percentage point or two more to the left of the nation as a whole.
One of those final states is the path. How feasible is it? That's another question - but it is likely the most feasible path to 270.
First, the Red Wall (ie, all states that Romney, McCain and Bush - twice - won): AL, AK, AR, AZ, GA, ID, KS, KY, LA, MO, MS, MT, ND, NE, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY. Note: I am not considering NE-2, which Obama won in 2008. During redistricting it was made even more pro-Republican, and in any race in which a GOP nominee approaches 270 EC votes, it should easily go Republican. Anyway, this totals 180 EC votes.
Second, secure IN and NC. These are two states that Obama narrowly won in 2008, but are still essentially Republican states. While NC does seem to be moving steadily to the left, that change is gradual and it should be redder than the national electorate for at least another couple Presidential cycles. That's another 26 EC votes, which brings the total to 206.
Third, secure the two major swing states of FL and OH. Though President Obama twice won each, he did so narrowly, and each time by a margin less than that of his national margin. This suggests that while these are purple states, their purplish hue is slightly more red than blue. These states have 47 EC votes, which brings the GOP to 253.
Now, it gets difficult. The low-hanging fruit is gone and our imaginary Republican Presidential nominee needs seventeen more votes in the Electoral College.
So, fourth: Virginia. This state has been steadily moving to the left. In 2012, President Obama carried it by almost exactly the same margin as he carried the national vote. If this trend persists - and given the election of McAuliffe as Governor in 2013, the first time since 1973 that a member of the party that controls the White House managed to win the statehouse in Virginia, it appears that it will indeed continue - then Virginia is going to continue getting more blue and less red. Still, at least for an election or two, it should at least hypothetically remain within the grasp of a good Republican Presidential candidate. Virginia has 13 EC votes. That brings it to 266.
Fifth, one more state is needed. Virginia will be tough enough - the final state will be even tougher. New Mexico? Nevada? They've lurched fairly strongly into the Democratic camp. Colorado? New Hampshire? Iowa? Obama has carried each of them twice, and by no less than 1.5% better than he did nationally. They'll be tough to pry away. Michigan? That's just a fantasy. Wisconsin? After flirting with the GOP in '00 and '04, it has gone strongly left twice, even with native son Paul Ryan on the ticket in 2012. Pennsylvania? Tantalizing, but it always runs at least a percentage point or two more to the left of the nation as a whole.
One of those final states is the path. How feasible is it? That's another question - but it is likely the most feasible path to 270.
I would have placed Colorado above Virginia in the probable tipping order but otherwise I think you're spot on. As to which candidate has the best chance to make that happen, I haven't a clue. Long term though, unless the GOP does much better with minorities, they're going to have to retake the blue wall states in the upper Midwest plus Pennsylvania, because minority voting isn't going to have as much impact there are it does nationwide.
To get Virginia, you need to drastically shrink the size of government, get all the liberal federal union employees residing in Arlington, Fairfax, Loudon and Alexandria a reason to move somewhere else.
To get Virginia, you need to drastically shrink the size of government, get all the liberal federal union employees residing in Arlington, Fairfax, Loudon and Alexandria a reason to move somewhere else.
I think VA going red in the near future is improbable, but that's 13 EV you have to get elsewhere if you write it off, and where those are likely to come from, I haven't a clue, unless you can flip some of the upper Midwest like Iowa, Minnesota or Wisconsin.
I think VA going red in the near future is improbable, but that's 13 EV you have to get elsewhere if you write it off, and where those are likely to come from, I haven't a clue, unless you can flip some of the upper Midwest like Iowa, Minnesota or Wisconsin.
They aren't flipping MN/WI/IA. Each of those states has a higher-than-average income, educated workforces, lower unemployment, and lower dependence on religion, and on federal dollars.
Not a recipe for a red state.
MN hasn't voted for a Republican since 1972. WI hasn't since 1984. Somehow Bush won IA in 2004. Those three states also have some of the highest voter turnout in the country. High turnout hurts Republicans.
First the GOP needs to get every state Romney won including North Carolina. Then absolutely critical is Florida. After Florida the easiest path would be Ohio and Pennsylvania. With Pennsylvania being very difficult, but probably having better demographics for them then Virginia and Colorado at this point. That is why so many Republicans were salavating over Christie before, and are hoping on Jeb Bush now. They need someone who can not only win over the GOP base but also get enough of those Northern suburban voters in places like the Philadelphia, and Cincinnati suburbs to come back to the GOP such that their base of older white voters can put them over in those places where that base is surviving as a viable political demographic.
I should mention that I agree that eastern states are the only viable refuge for the GOP in 2016. But they still have big problems there. They don't get to 270 even if they take back OH/VA/FL, which are their three best shots. Assuming the same map as 2012, that only gets them to 266 with the Dems at 272. GOP still needs PA, which hasn't voted for a Republican since 1988.
I should mention that I agree that eastern states are the only viable refuge for the GOP in 2016. But they still have big problems there. They don't get to 270 even if they take back OH/VA/FL, which are their three best shots. Assuming the same map as 2012, that only gets them to 266 with the Dems at 272. GOP still needs PA, which hasn't voted for a Republican since 1988.
The map doesn't look good for the GOP.
Probably one of the biggest mistakes the GOP has made in recent years was ditching Michael Steele as party chair. He not only was doing the outreach the GOP needed among minorities, but he was a suburban Republican from the Northeast corridor who knew how to talk to moderate suburbanites, and while this may have angered the republican right, it would have probably won them elections had he been allowed more time to bring his vision to fruition.
Probably one of the biggest mistakes the GOP has made in recent years was ditching Michael Steele as party chair. He not only was doing the outreach the GOP needed among minorities, but he was a suburban Republican from the Northeast corridor who knew how to talk to moderate suburbanites, and while this may have angered the republican right, it would have probably won them elections had he been allowed more time to bring his vision to fruition.
I too don't understand why they got rid of him. He only presided over the 2010 election, correct?
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.
