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)
 
Old 01-05-2015, 09:03 PM
 
11,057 posts, read 3,762,488 times
Reputation: 5197

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn View Post
The GOP reign of error, 5 of 6 POTUS popular vote losses, just 39% of electoral votes in 24 years..all occurred with the GOP Southern Strategy.



you still with the same broken record......the fact is in the last 4 U.S. Presidential Elections both parties have split 2-2.....and a party hasn't won the WH 3 times in a row close to 30 years ago and that was Reagan 3rd term because he was that popular something Obama isn't and won't gift wrap the WH to Hillary (assuming she is the nominee)


you can't count 1992 and 1996 because Ross Perot who ran under a conservative platform hurt more the Republican ticket than the Democrat ticket as a 3rd party candidate with deep pockets. The only reason Bubba Clinton won in 1992 with 43% of the vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-05-2015, 09:12 PM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
19,037 posts, read 15,489,709 times
Reputation: 3957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999 View Post
you still with the same broken record......the fact is in the last 4 U.S. Presidential Elections both parties have split 2-2.....and a party hasn't won the WH 3 times in a row close to 30 years ago and that was Reagan 3rd term because he was that popular something Obama isn't and won't gift wrap the WH to Hillary (assuming she is the nominee)


you can't count 1992 and 1996 because Ross Perot who ran under a conservative platform hurt more the Republican ticket than the Democrat ticket as a 3rd party candidate with deep pockets. The only reason Bubba Clinton won in 1992 with 43% of the vote.
Perot took SLIGHTLY more from Bush than Clinton in 1992, and the difference between Dole and Clinton in 1996 was even less. Neither race was tight enough to really have any impact. Might have flipped a couple states in 1992, but not enough to make a difference. Despite getting considerably less of the vote, Nader played a bigger role in 2000 than Perot played in 1992 or 1996
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2015, 09:46 PM
 
Location: Jewel Lake (Sagle) Idaho
27,580 posts, read 17,653,386 times
Reputation: 15644
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
First, a disclaimer. For anyone who doesn't already know it, I am a democrat. Most people here would probably say I'm a liberal too. Even so, I consider myself a moderate to conservative democrat who is troubled by the most left wing people in the party. I think the Election of 2016 greatly favors the democrats. Yet, I've seen elections thrown away by sheer stupidity. Here's my list of all the ways we could throw away the election:

1. Allow a huge primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren that bitterly divides some in the party.

2. Nominate Warren to be President, despite the fact that the party has always lost when it nominated a "Massachusetts Liberal" (Dukakis, Kerry) as its Presidential candidate.

3. Have no other agenda other than opposing anything that the GOP wants.

4. Keep up opposition to projects like the Keystone Pipeline which would, at the very least, bring many high-paying, short-term construction jobs to this country and, over the long-haul probably help to keep oil prices down.

5. Act like the only issues that matter in this country are "women's rights" issues.

6. Repeatedly demonize all business interests in this country and act like they are on the right-hand of Satan.

7. Fail to take threats in the Middle East like ISIS seriously.

8. Continue to blame George W. Bush for every problem in the country, despite the fact he's been out of office for six years now.

9. Pretend that Jeb Bush is not a serious candidate for President and do little to prepare for a race against him.

10. Take minority votes for granted when there is a rising tide of disatisfaction with both parties in the Hispanic and African American communities.

Winning in 2016, requires us to acknowledge and deal with these problems instead of putting our heads in the sand.
Dude, if there was a Democratic candidate that thought that way, I'd vote for them. I strongly oppose the modern, far-left loony incarnation of the Democratic party. But moderate, fiscally conservative Democrats (sometimes called blue-dog Democrats) I could vote for. I'd go for a moderate, pro-job, pro-freedom Dem over the religious right of the Republican party. Sadly the extremists of both parties have sold out the moderate voters. The original Tea Party movement, when it started in ~ 07 with a focus on reducing taxes, spending and the size and power of government, was a major step in the right direction, and the first voice of reason in US politics in a few decades. Sadly the movement was co-opted by the superstitious branch of the Republican party, who, in many cases, are as nutty as some of the far-left of the Democratic party.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2015, 09:51 PM
 
1,721 posts, read 1,007,538 times
Reputation: 1117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bureaucat View Post
Exit polls in 2012 revealed that 88% of the Republican vote was white, while the Democratic vote was 56% white. Republicans are more dependent on the white vote whose share of the total Presidential electorate has fallen 15% in 20 years. It has actually fallen in every Presidential year since 1984 with the exception of a 1% increase in 1992. The percentage of white vote is falling at a rate of about 2% per both Presidential and off-year cycle. For the last several cycles, the trend has been -5/+3, meaning the white percentage falls five points nationally in a Presidential year from the previous off-year percentage and then gains 3 points in the next off year. In 2008: 74%, in 2010: 77%, in 2012: 72% and in 2014: 75%. If the cycle holds, we should see a white percentage of about 70% in the Presidential Year of 2016 and 73% in 2018. By 2020, the white percentage in the Presidential race should fall below 70% and continue on down until the white percentage becomes a minority (albeit the largest minority group in a nation of minorities) in the late 2040s or early 2050s.

In the 2010 census, the average white was 42 years old, while Asians were 35.4, blacks 34.4, Native Americans 30, Latinos 27.3 and those identifying two races or more 19.9.

Regarding the South, it's the one Region of the country where whites vote in a bloc that is in any way similar to the voting patterns of minority patterns of minorities and the white voters of the South are disproportionally old. In 2012, over 70% of whites in Georgia voted for Romney, but 3 out of every 4 voters in Georgia over the age of 65 was white. The minority vote was much younger. When you have a state where 30% of the vote is minority and the large bulk of them are blacks voting at a rate of 85-90% for the Democrat, you need to carry at a minimum, two out of every three white voters to offset that advantage. Georgia, and other Southern states with significant minority populations are not in danger of flipping in 2016, but as those older white voters pass from the scene abd are replaced by a more diverse electorate, holding even portions of deep red Dixie is going to be more problematic unless the voting patterns of minorities change.

As far as 2016 is concerned, the Dems don't need the South. They actually don't need Florida, which politically speaking really isn't Southern, whereas the GOP literally cannot win without it, unless they flip a state they haven't won in 24 years.

There are 5 political fault lines that are indicative as to how individuals and the states they live in vote; race/ethnicity, age, urbanization, religion and education, and none of them are trending the Republicans way.

1. Race/ethnicity:The diversity of the electorate is increasing about 2% per election cycle and is breaking democratic 80/20.

2. Age: Older voters are heavily Republican while younger votes trend more Democratic. Most people do not change their political persuasions as they get older. If you vote one way for three or more Presidential election, you normally vote that way for life.

3. Urbanization: Republican voters are more rural based, whereas Democrats are urban based. The percentage of voters defined as rural has been falling for close to a hundred years. As always, the tipping point occurs in the suburbs, but inner suburbs that were once heavily Republican are now more racially mixed and trending Democratic.

4. Religion: There was a Gallup Poll in 2009 that asked "Is Religion Important in your Daily Life"? The states with the highest percentage of positive responses were the traditional Bible Belt of the South and Appalachia. Most of the states of the Blue Wall ranked in the lower half of those states. Formerly Republican New England ranked close to the bottom. Those states where Southern Baptists and Pentacostals were dominant ranked high and are overwhelmingly Republican. States outside the South that are predominantly Catholic or Mainstream Protestant ranked lower on the survey and generally vote Democratic. Younger voters tend to be more secular. The sector of Republican Evangelicals who believe in Biblical Inerrancy, and deny the existence of Evolution hurts Republican appeal with educated white voters, as does their stances on abortion and gay rights.

5. Post-Secondary Education: The strongest base of the Republican Party are white, non-college voters. For each year of educational attainment beyond high school, the tendency to vote Republican lessens. When you reach the level of graduate degrees, the majority of white voters are Democrats. As older, white, high school graduates, die off, they are not only being replaced by higher percentages of minorities, but higher percentages of college educated white voters with more liberal voting patterns.
Beautiful post. I love how you actually city facts to support your argument, whereas your opponents seem to use unfounded notions. I hope your efforts aren't futile, and I commend your effforts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2015, 09:58 PM
 
1,721 posts, read 1,007,538 times
Reputation: 1117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake View Post
Dude, if there was a Democratic candidate that thought that way, I'd vote for them. I strongly oppose the modern, far-left loony incarnation of the Democratic party. But moderate, fiscally conservative Democrats (sometimes called blue-dog Democrats) I could vote for. I'd go for a moderate, pro-job, pro-freedom Dem over the religious right of the Republican party. Sadly the extremists of both parties have sold out the moderate voters. The original Tea Party movement, when it started in ~ 07 with a focus on reducing taxes, spending and the size and power of government, was a major step in the right direction, and the first voice of reason in US politics in a few decades. Sadly the movement was co-opted by the superstitious branch of the Republican party, who, in many cases, are as nutty as some of the far-left of the Democratic party.
I completely disagree. Perceptions of conservative/liberal are largely relative. To me it seems the Democrats are primarily centrist to slightly liberal, while the Republicans are right wing ideologues.

Let's consider the Affordable Care Act. So many Republicans deride as socialized takeover of health care, when in fact it's actually an old Republican idea. It's very similar to something Bob Dole proposed a few decades ago, and it's very much a nationalized version of what Romney did in MA.

A truly liberal would be single-payer, but Obama certainly never proposed anything like that. Hell, the Democrats were too timid to push for the 'public option' which is a truly moderate idea in that it doesn't eliminate private insurance; it just gives persons a public option similar to Medicare.

How many truly liberal nationally prominent Democrats are there? I only think of a handful, and if Obama is a liberal, he certainly hasn't governed like one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2015, 10:16 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,677 posts, read 17,072,530 times
Reputation: 7282
Guamanians"If everyone loved Hillary so much then she would have won the dem primary in 2008."

She received 300,000 more primary votes than Obama, she lost solely based on delegate count.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2015, 08:57 AM
 
11,057 posts, read 3,762,488 times
Reputation: 5197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
Perot took SLIGHTLY more from Bush than Clinton in 1992, and the difference between Dole and Clinton in 1996 was even less. Neither race was tight enough to really have any impact. Might have flipped a couple states in 1992, but not enough to make a difference. Despite getting considerably less of the vote, Nader played a bigger role in 2000 than Perot played in 1992 or 1996

SLIGHTLY???? Ross Perot ran on a conservative platform of PRO LIFE, low taxes, smaller government and pro gun rights and was against a federal mandate takeover of health care (Hillarycare and obamacare).....who do you think he hurt the most by running in 1992?



in 1996 Ross Perot didn't have the same effect as 1992 and by then Clinton had good approval numbers and is very hard to beat an incumbent president with positive approval numbers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2015, 09:07 AM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
19,037 posts, read 15,489,709 times
Reputation: 3957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999 View Post
SLIGHTLY???? Ross Perot ran on a conservative platform of PRO LIFE, low taxes, smaller government and pro gun rights and was against a federal mandate takeover of health care (Hillarycare and obamacare).....who do you think he hurt the most by running in 1992?



in 1996 Ross Perot didn't have the same effect as 1992 and by then Clinton had good approval numbers and is very hard to beat an incumbent president with positive approval numbers.

Yes, slightly. There were multiple polls, exit polls, etc, that showed he took a little more from Bush than Clinton, but not a big difference. It was likely enough to impact a couple states, but not enough to flip the election.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2015, 10:46 AM
 
7,108 posts, read 2,521,071 times
Reputation: 3593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
Yes, slightly. There were multiple polls, exit polls, etc, that showed he took a little more from Bush than Clinton, but not a big difference. It was likely enough to impact a couple states, but not enough to flip the election.
Correct. Studies have indicated that Perot may have cost Bush Ohio, Colorado or Montana but otherwise it would have been a wash and Clinton would have won easily in the Electoral College regardless of how those states fell. Exit polls in 1992 indicated that 38% of Perot voters would have voted for Bush if Perot had not on the ballot, 38% would have voted for Clinton if Perot were not on the ballot, and the remainder stated that they would not have voted if Perot were not on the ballot.

Last edited by Bureaucat; 01-06-2015 at 10:54 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2015, 03:44 PM
 
Location: MPLS
752 posts, read 449,301 times
Reputation: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999 View Post
" ... a party hasn't won the WH 3 times in a row close to 30 years ago and that was Reagan 3rd term because he was that popular something Obama isn't and won't gift wrap the WH to Hillary (assuming she is the nominee)"
What you're missing is that the country is a whole lot more polarized than in the past. George W. Bush had an approval rating of 20% in November of 2008. The economy was collapsing. Obama won pretty comfortably, but John McCain should've been annihilated. Aside from winning all of the typical swing states, Obama's only additional pickup was Indiana. Well, speaking of things that haven't happened in decades, there's a block of 242 electoral votes that no Republican has won since 1988. Given their shifting demographics, Nevada and New Mexico don't look very promising, either. Add them to the blue column, and the Democratic Party's floor is now 253 electoral votes. New Hampshire has voted for the Democratic candidate in five of the past six elections, and Iowa has done the same in six of the past seven. Assuming past results indicate future returns, there's a strong possibility that the Democratic nominee will begin the 2016 election with 263 electoral votes leaning or likely. At which point he/she only needs an additional seven. With the white share of the population dropping by the day in Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida, the odds of winning those seven electoral votes look pretty good.

Last edited by drishmael; 01-06-2015 at 04:39 PM..
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.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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