U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-06-2014, 05:26 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
34,586 posts, read 33,570,813 times
Reputation: 51679

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by i_love_autumn View Post
In an electorate that overwhelmingly favored Republicans, Democrats said they managed to boost the number of ballots cast over 2010 in key states like New Hampshire, North Carolina and Colorado.

And there is little evidence that the GOP made major inroads among women, minorities and young voters, who will be key to winning the White House in 2016.
A look at voter turnout suggests 2016 won't be easy for Republicans

The approval rating for Congress is ONLY 22%!

The people will be even sicker of them after 2 more years of the SAME-O,SAME-O!
The people who voted were sick of Obama. Since he'll be around for 2 more years if he continues to act abominably (Obama-nably ) it will just be a matter of tying the Democrat candidate for President to his policies. If I were the GOP, I'd have my researchers scouring the web for pictures of possible candidates hugging or kissing him now before those images disappear.

The Senate and House Democrats are in a pickle. If he continues to act arrogantly and against public opinion, how can those Democrat politicians line up with him, again, over the next 2 years?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-06-2014, 06:59 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,677 posts, read 17,013,607 times
Reputation: 7282
1 in 5.

Keep remembering those numbers. Turnout rises for POTUS by about 20% of all eligible voters. POTUS turnouts are far, far, far more diverse. Every POTUS cycle features a mix that is around 2% less white than the prior POTUS race.

It all comes down to 44% being the lowest bar for the GOP. W's 44% Latino share is a prereq minimum for POTUS.At some point, a plurality of Latinos will be a prereq.

1 in 5.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2014, 07:36 PM
 
6,919 posts, read 2,467,877 times
Reputation: 3487
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTHokieFan View Post
They forget about how George HW Bush won the Asian vote over Clinton 55-45. George W. won 40% of Hispanics.
Dubya won 40% of the hispanic vote calling for a kindler, gentler conservatism including immigration reform. What's the chances that the primary voters who will ultimately nominate future Republician nominees would a favor such a candidate now? Without that leeway, good luck getting 40% of the Hispanic vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2014, 04:22 AM
 
Location: NJ
18,677 posts, read 17,013,607 times
Reputation: 7282
The Catch 22 Bureaucat is simply what appeals to the Lowest Common Denominator amongst the base ("narrowing" the tent) alienates non-white pops, and since the midterm electorate is disproportionately white, the GOP Senate and House members do better..by doing precisely what will make it virtually impossible for a GOP POTUS nominee to win.

The irony is the GOP needs Comprehensive Immigration Reform, and the Dems would be best served if GOP Congressional majorities prevent that from happening. That way, it stays on the "to do list" for 2016.TheGOP would als0 be far better off if off-year elections mirrored POTUS elections in becoming increasingly less white. Then, the impossible pivot would not be needed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2014, 07:25 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
34,586 posts, read 33,570,813 times
Reputation: 51679
Quote:
Originally Posted by i_love_autumn View Post
In an electorate that overwhelmingly favored Republicans, Democrats said they managed to boost the number of ballots cast over 2010 in key states like New Hampshire, North Carolina and Colorado.

And there is little evidence that the GOP made major inroads among women, minorities and young voters, who will be key to winning the White House in 2016.[u]
I would say the Dems made no inroads seeing as how more 2014 voters were whiter and over age 45. Why do you think Obama and the Dems want to open the floodgates to make more illegals legal? They can't convince the public that their ideology is good for America so they have to import people and then make them dependent on Democrats. Obama won't be at the top of the ticket in 2016.

75% of 2014 voters were white versus 72% in 2012.

65% of 2014 voters were over age 45 compared to 54% in 2012.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/us...forecast-.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2014, 07:29 AM
 
20,611 posts, read 12,954,241 times
Reputation: 5904
Quote:
Originally Posted by sxrckr View Post
The LA Times is spinning? You don't say!
Agreed and HOW!

Just 2 years ago the Repubs were written off, 2014 proved how wrong that was. It's on the Dems to step up and take care of business, especially with who's the POTUS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2014, 09:42 AM
 
10,541 posts, read 13,056,448 times
Reputation: 6312
Turn out was lower in the 2014 mid term than it was in 2010 mid term. Less voters means Republicans do better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2014, 09:56 AM
 
9,182 posts, read 4,231,217 times
Reputation: 10985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa View Post
It's not gender, per se. The Republicans are on the wrong side of issues that matter to women - at least to the majority of them. The Dems will also draw a lot of women (and men too) to whom the issues are not as important just to see a woman in the White House. You are naive or in denial if you think otherwise.

The big question is not if she will win, but if can she beat the gerrymandering of the House in the process.
First of all, Hillary is not a typical woman candidate. If she were, she would get a huge number of women voting for her because sadly, humans will vote based on race, gender, or some other "birds of a feather" factor.

The trouble for Hillary is that she does not relate to average women, only the liberal kind who flaunt independence and mock tradition. So while she will certainly get the liberal vote (20% + -) in a general election, trying to get non Cosmo readers to vote for her is another matter all together.

She will pretend to be moderate, but people who know politics have not forgotten that she, more than Bill, was the driving liberal force behind his years as Governor and POTUS. Her disdain for a traditional gender role was evident with her "I'm not going to be baking cookies" type comments.
Most people could care less if she baked cookies, but to crap on all the women around the country that do enjoy being a traditional wife and mother was a huge mistake. If you listen to groups like NOW, they love Hillary. But a larger women's group CWA(who the liberal media rarely quotes)cannot stand her.

I do not discount that low information women voters will pull the level for her, just as low information black voters pulled it for Obama. However women tend to be pretty astute/savvy once they mature, so Hillary is no lock based on that alone. Combined with her being so polarizing, people will not want another 4 years of gridlock like the last 6(soon to be 8)years have been.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2014, 10:03 AM
 
Location: Portland, OR
8,803 posts, read 7,556,670 times
Reputation: 4501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bureaucat View Post
Dubya won 40% of the hispanic vote calling for a kindler, gentler conservatism including immigration reform. What's the chances that the primary voters who will ultimately nominate future Republician nominees would a favor such a candidate now? Without that leeway, good luck getting 40% of the Hispanic vote.
Pretty good. Parties evolve over time. The Reagan era happened, and Democrats were forced to the center creating the "Third Way"/"New Democrats" of the Clinton Era. Do you think Democrats would be electable with their 1970s platform?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2014, 11:18 AM
 
6,919 posts, read 2,467,877 times
Reputation: 3487
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post
I would say the Dems made no inroads seeing as how more 2014 voters were whiter and over age 45. Why do you think Obama and the Dems want to open the floodgates to make more illegals legal? They can't convince the public that their ideology is good for America so they have to import people and then make them dependent on Democrats. Obama won't be at the top of the ticket in 2016.

75% of 2014 voters were white versus 72% in 2012.

65% of 2014 voters were over age 45 compared to 54% in 2012.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/us...forecast-.html
You're mixing apples and oranges when you compare the composition of presidential and non-presidential elections. The white percentage of the 2012 presidential election electorate was 72%. The white percentage has fallen 15% in presidential elections in the last 20 years. The composition of off-year election voters skews older and whiter, since they vote more consistently than other groups, but white percentages are falling in every off-year election as well, falling 11% in 20 years. Just as the 72% white turnout in 2012 was the lowest in our history in presidential years, the 75% white turnout in the off-year election of 2014 was the lowest ever recorded for non-presidential years. Don't compare the 75% white turnout in this year's election as a trend. It isn't. A more meaningful comparison is with the last off-year election of 2010, when the white turnout was 77% of the total vote. The white vote has actually declined 2% from the last comparable year. On average, over the last 6 presidential election and the last 6 non-presidential elections, the white percentage of the total vote has dropped an average of 1.8% per four year cycle in non-presidential years (where voting is traditionally lighter from Minorities) and an average of a 2.5% drop in white percentage of the vote in presidential years. Given the trends we have seen over the past few elections, we can reasonably expect the 2012 electorate to be about 70% white, with an uptick in the white vote in the off-year election of 2018 to about 72 or 73%. In the presidential election of 2020, we can expect a total white vote of about 67 or 68%, with a slight uptick in 2022, which is more than in 2020 but less than in 2018.

That's just basic math and generational replacement at work. It affects Republicans more than Democrats because they traditionally depend on a base that's disproportionally white whereas the Democrats racial splits more accurately reflects where the nation is now, and the direction in which it is heading, not where we were as a nation 30 or more years ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:18 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top