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 don't buy Caleb's story. I am white semi-liberal, and if anything, I am a more motivated to vote democrat. Obama has been fine, and the GOP has been John Birch quality bad. I mean they seem to revel in being anti-science, anti-American, hate-mongering, and relentlessly dishonest shills for the plutocrats and televangelists. I have not seen a single GOP accomplishment in the last 6 years. But I am an individual, so my observations are just an anecedote. I guess I am just saying that even if the white libs are a bit disappointed with Obama (I am not, I know what he has been up against), the GOP has not acted in a way that is even remotely appealing. So, they are not a reasonable option. Given their toxic narrative, their only long term hopes are gerrymandering and vote suppression, or just laziness and despondency on the other side.
Bottomline. The GOP had the energy in this cycle. The Dems were lazy and unfocused. Congrats are in order, but anything beyond that is reading tea leaves.
Truth is, the Dems are like a sleeping grizzly, and the GOP is like a wolverine gnawing on its leg. Eventually, the grizzly is going to wake up, get mad, and have the weasel for breakfast. Probably in 2016, but that will depend upon leadership, which has yet to emerge.
Well, there's one of you...too bad for you it was going to take enough to offset that what, 7% a$$ beating you guys took soooooo maybe, juuuuuuuuust maybe I'm right?
John Birch quality...as if.....however, if that is the antithesis of the left wing welfare state, I'll go with door number 1. Anti-American??? Are you kidding? This is beyond laughable....you have a President and AG who are routinely breaking the law and have all BUT said, they hate whitey....that might be okay for us civilians but, as YOUR/OUR President AND AG???? Both are sworn to uphold the law while both routinely decide when to honor it...do your homework.
Gerrymandering??? That's been around for BOTH sides forever. Do your homework.....Toxic narrative??? You mean the one where Reid would not pass any Congressional Bill to run cover for the President's veto? How many bills were sent up??? He even managed to throw that whale Landrieu under the bus and you are worried about....us?
Dem's are sleeping, they have just awakened to the proverbial Homer Simpson answer when asked, why did we vote for this guy...... "Doi!"
Ohio yes, due to homefield. Iowa no and Wisconsin heck no.
Plus, what is the response for Virginia (trending solidly blue), Florida (purple trending blue), Pennsylvania (leans slightly blue), Michigan (trending solidly blue), Nevada (trending solidly blue), and Colorado (purple trending blue)?
The electoral college map wasn't even close the last 8 years. A GOP win requires running the table on all battleground states, while most of them have leaned further blue.
There is simply no mathematical course for the GOP unless they find a centrist like Christie that can infiltrate the blue wall.
There is no blue wall (see my OP) and, if there is, it might get Democrats in the 250-260 range but not to 270. There is also no conceivable way you can call states solidly blue based on two consecutive wins by the same candidate (preceded by consecutive GOP wins). Romney did better than McCain in each of the states you mention and, while long-term trends do exist, they slowed between 2008 and 2012. VA isn't even remotely solidly blue - it was redder than the country as a whole in 2012.
The electoral map may not have been close and the Dems do have a slight advantage, but the GOP does have one fairly significant advantage - it would take a large shift in the vote for it to lose many states. The Democrats could lose tons of states with a fairly minor shift.
A perfect example of statistical inference being taken too far. It is impossible to know how a larger electorate would have voted. So I consider that RCP discussion little more than conjecture. I do agree with your observation that Dems should not be taking comfort in the notion that the low turnout excuses their losses. Dems have a real problem motivating their voters to get off their duffs and go to the polls. They are not always going to find an inspirational candidate like Obama. A boring old lady like Clinton may not be enough next time. This is a problem they need to work on. But then, it has always been a problem.
It is absolutely true that it's unknown exactly how a larger electorate would've voted. One could even hypothesize that the minorities and young people that did vote this year were more likely to be conservative than those who voted in 2012. However, that doesn't account for all of this.
I also agree that Democrats seem naive in assuming their high turnout in 2008 and 2012 was because these were presidential election years rather than because of Obama specifically.
Frankly, I don't care if he is a PINKO. The reference is to his solid performance, election history in Ohio, and the possible drag in other midwest states. That is all. Same effect a Martinez on the ticket could have in the Southwest.
It is absolutely true that it's unknown exactly how a larger electorate would've voted. One could even hypothesize that the minorities and young people that did vote this year were more likely to be conservative than those who voted in 2012. However, that doesn't account for all of this.
I also agree that Democrats seem naive in assuming their high turnout in 2008 and 2012 was because these were presidential election years rather than because of Obama specifically.
Look at MD for a minute which is 2-1 Democratic in registration. Voting numbers were down in the three overwhelmingly Democratic jurisdictions (Montgomery and Prince George's Counties and Baltimore City). Republican Larry Hogan beat Democrat Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown by 9%. But, the other statewide races for Attorney General and Comptroller went to the Democratic candidates by the 2-1 registration margin.
Lack of participation can't totally explain the Gubernatorial results. Looking at the numbers it would appear that a fair number of Democrats voted Republican.
As a side note, numerous long time Democratic legislators lost their seats and many formerly Democratic open seats went Republican.
I'll say something bound to trouble many. The Rs only has a couple of point advantage due to this years political climate. And it I doubt it is a permanent one.
But aside from Alaska and NC Senate races and the two Kansas races- the vast majority of Dems who lost deserved to lose. Team R fielded much better candidates. Even Joni Ernst who many predicted would be this years tea-party implosion proved to be very disciplined and more capable of expressing her views than the many of the R candidates in previous election cycles. Her opponent was also am utter clod but that would have won her a 5 point race not a 10 point one.
Mark Warner ran a completely miscalculated race in Va and still held on. Kay Hagan only went down by 2 in NC. Udall who seemed to think it was a race for abortionist and birth control dispenser as opposed to Senator only went down by 3. Begich kept it close in Alaska. To me that says that NC will be competitive instead of a foregone R win, Colorado is competitive at worst for Ds and probably a likely win if their candidate does not suck. And combined with Terry McAuliffe who was a horrible candidate winning Governor in the previous off year race I think Va now becomes Wisconsin- Dems will win it regardless but probably not by much. Florida was also a 2 point race.
The significance of that is that NC, Va and CO used to be foregone R victories. If they are in play or gone for the Rs they quickly run out of out of places to find shelter on the monopoly board. And Florida is still very competitive- I was surprised Obama crossed the line in 1st their in 2012 but it doesn't look like it has moved far enough in the other direction to call it a true flip.
I don't pay heed to any of the Governors races because they mostly made their own beds- no way the R in Illinois or Massachusetts delivers it for them in the 2016 and no way the D takes Alaska like their gubernatorial candidate just did.
But, but, but it was only because minorities didn't turn out...
Also, according to some liberals, the GOP re-won the House solely because of gerrymandering. This is true when it won the popular vote by 6.5 points?!?
But, but, but it was only because the young didn't turn out....
And, no, you cannot simply add 2 and 1.94. People are in multiple groups.
But, but, but this doesn't matter in the purple states, the above all because of huge margins in House races in red states. In purple/blue states, it was all about turnout...
The evidence of an entirely certain Democratic victory in 2016 is . . . ? Oh, yes, the "blue wall." The GOP winning the popular vote in 2012 by less than 1.5 with the same shift across the board would have resulted in an electoral college win. (And I don't think it would've taken that much of a popular vote win but that's for another thread.)
Also, even if it had been just low turnout by your voters, would that really be something to be proud of?
I have yet to find a circumstance when reality and democrat went together. Let me know if you find an example.
earthlyfather, Your Kasich talk is the same as the Ryan will get Mittens Wisconsin talk.
VPs do not add squat. The goal in selecting one should be to avoid subtracting via a bad pick. Ryan wasn't bad, Palin was a bad pick. But that meant Ryan simply did not cost Mittens states.
There is simply no mathematical course for the GOP unless they find a centrist like Christie that can infiltrate the blue wall.
Romney was a centrist. McCain was a centrist. Dole was one, too. They lost.
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.
