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 01-06-2015, 03:55 PM
 
12,639 posts, read 7,310,823 times
Reputation: 7449

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by drishmael View Post
What you're missing is that 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.
All of this presumes that the people who vote in "blue states" are willing to ignore 8 years of a failed presidency. I don't think they're that stupid, apparently you do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-06-2015, 05:08 PM
 
Location: MPLS
752 posts, read 448,722 times
Reputation: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trace21230 View Post
All of this presumes that the people who vote in "blue states" are willing to ignore 8 years of a failed presidency. I don't think they're that stupid, apparently you do.
Well, I'm actually one of those people (Minnesotan, not stupid), and if you want to have any hope of persuading my neighbors (I'm a lost cause), you're going to have to leave the Fox bubble.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2015, 05:18 PM
 
12,639 posts, read 7,310,823 times
Reputation: 7449
Quote:
Originally Posted by drishmael View Post
Well, I'm actually one of those people (Minnesotan, not stupid), and if you want to have any hope of persuading my neighbors (I'm a lost cause), you're going to have to leave the Fox bubble.
You're the one claiming blue state voters will vote Democrat until the end of time no matter what the Democrats do. Not me.

Say, are you related to bobtn?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2015, 06:00 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,677 posts, read 17,056,349 times
Reputation: 7282
Good analysis, drishmael. We both know 1988-2012 is a hard pattern to break. Now I do think eventually the GOP will see the light and pass Comprehensive Immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship, as well as take NO position on contraception at all. They will either do that, or 2012 is going to look wonderful for the GOP and POTUS, relative to 2016, 2020, 2024,...

Unlike the Tracer, I realize the problem the GOP faces regarding POTUS is not going to change via the voters changing, but rather via the party returning to mainstream America, which is closer to Rockerfeller than Santorum or Cruz..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2015, 07:27 PM
 
Location: On a Long Island in NY
7,680 posts, read 8,480,429 times
Reputation: 7034
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn View Post
Unlike the Tracer, I realize the problem the GOP faces regarding POTUS is not going to change via the voters changing, but rather via the party returning to mainstream America, which is closer to Rockerfeller than Santorum or Cruz..


I couldent have said it better, agreed 100%

We don't necessarily need to provide amnesty for illegals, but we DO need to move away from social conservatism and especially from issues like abortion and gay marriage. The "Religious Right" is killing the GOP brand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2015, 07:59 PM
 
12,639 posts, read 7,310,823 times
Reputation: 7449
Quote:
Originally Posted by WIHS2006 View Post


I couldent have said it better, agreed 100%

We don't necessarily need to provide amnesty for illegals, but we DO need to move away from social conservatism and especially from issues like abortion and gay marriage. The "Religious Right" is killing the GOP brand.
Another poster totally ignorant of the historic ass whipping the Democrats got just a couple months ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2015, 08:42 PM
 
7,038 posts, read 2,507,199 times
Reputation: 3561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trace21230 View Post
Another poster totally ignorant of the historic ass whipping the Democrats got just a couple months ago.
And yet another poster ignoring the difference in the electorate in an off-year and in a Presidential Election. Based upon the 2010 returns, weren't you expecting President Romney to be planning his re-election bid by now Trace?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2015, 08:58 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
34,667 posts, read 33,667,394 times
Reputation: 51854
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanapolicRiddle View Post
While it worked really well for many years, Republicans are now in trouble because they're still relying on 'Southern Strategy' first brilliantly employed by Nixon. He was politically astute enough to understand that he'd win if he received overwhelming support from the white electorate. At that time, a significant majority of the US was white. This strategy continued to be largely successful until 1992. [Even though Gore and Kerry lost, just barely.]

The demographics of the US have gradually changed, that we're now a far more ethnically diverse country, so the Southern Strategy simply doesn't work anymore. Republicans have disregarded non-whites for so long, they won't receive their support for at least several decades.

I know the mid-terms results have made many Republicans overly optimistic, but that electorate was mostly older white voters (predominately Republican). Only about 27% of those under 30 voted. That simply won't be the case in 2016: turn out is always higher, and if Hilary is the nominee, women will be especially motivated to vote in an effort to elect the first woman president. All these factors don't bode well for Republicans.
Would you listen to yourself? You are saying that the reason women would vote for Hillary is because of her sex because they don't care about jobs, the economy, energy, foreign affairs all they care about is that she has a vagina, like they do, so any old vagina will do to run the country. Do you think women are that stupid and small minded? And if you are going down that road, may I remind you that Hillary Clinton is a rich old white lady. 24/7 Wall Street estimates the Clintons' wealth at around $55 million. Heck, Elizabeth Warren is a rich old white lady. On her Personal Financial Disclosure form that she filled out when she ran for the Senate, she said she was worth 14.5 million dollars and she lives in a hoity-toity neighborhood. Does that mean the YOUNG Occupy Wall Street group won't vote for either of those 2 white old ladies?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2015, 09:29 PM
 
12,639 posts, read 7,310,823 times
Reputation: 7449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bureaucat View Post
And yet another poster ignoring the difference in the electorate in an off-year and in a Presidential Election. Based upon the 2010 returns, weren't you expecting President Romney to be planning his re-election bid by now Trace?
When informed voters vote, Democrats lose.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2015, 09:37 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,677 posts, read 17,056,349 times
Reputation: 7282
Correct, Bureaucat. Here was one of Trace21230's most accurate (LOL) pre 2012 election posts.


Correct, 05-06-2012, 12:30 PM
[SIZE=5]Trace21230[/SIZE]
Evil GOPer - Kicks Puppies and Makes Kids Cry
befriend
Join Date: Jul 2011
6,719 posts, read 2,146,610 times
Reputation: 3275




Quote:
Originally Posted by mig1
Pick your poison: Romney is a political parasite (exactly what our government has become), in addition, he was a 1992 registered dumbocrat and is not likable in the least, hence, he cannot beat Obama, period.

Ron Paul is the lesser of all evils, best option in my view.


Your candidate Barack Obama is going to lose badly in November. Book it.
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