Dems start electoral college with 240 votes, how do they loose? (Mexicans, racist)

[spencer114]

Originally Posted by Dequindre

Including Virginia (which thoroughly rebuked their Governor's attempt to pass gun control). The original poster in this thread, when I brought that up, simply dismissed it.

The margin of victory was only a small percentage and actually shows a shifting (to blue) electorate in Chesterfield. A republican seat went to a republican in a gerrymandered district. Disappointing but no shocker. The republican wasn't off-putting at all either. There were no crocodile tears for Jesus shed, no immigrants thrown under the bus. He was a better candidate than any republican running for the office of POTUS. Virginia is solidly blue and urbanized enough for gun control to win in a state-wide election.

[Rico Valencia]

Originally Posted by spencer114

So Trumps creates jobs by making cars and household goods unaffordable? Got it.
And when Mexico does the same with the food and copper and oil that they sell to us this too will create jobs here?

I'll take Trump any day of the week over Hillary. Trump will fight day and night for the middle class worker and is self funding his campaign, hence he's not beholden or influenced by special interests.

Hillary, on the other hand, is beholden to special interests and super pacs and is clearly in bed with the "to big to fail" banks, big pharma, and the unscrupulous multinational corporations

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by bellhead

Republicans, answer me how do the dems loose with the nation being more polarized and Red becoming Redder and Blue becoming Bluer?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...d0c_story.html

Democrats have a built-in edge in the Electoral College. But it guarantees them nothing for 2016

1 there aren't a hell of a lot of "swing states." Giving that extra Nebraska vote to the GOP, all that remains are 10 states, totaling 116 electoral votes, that have offered their electoral votes to both parties since 2000.

2 the Republicans have to win the outsized majority of those "swing" electoral votes to win the presidency. If the Democrats can hold onto just 24 percent of the electoral votes "in play," they win the White House.

George Bush already gave conservatives the way to win the white House, Camp out in Ohio, spend all your money on the East Coast ( New Hampshire,Virginia, North Carolina, Florida.

The only problem is, Arizona,Missouri, Montana,South Dakota and North Dakota , arent all that red any more. conceding the mid west could cost you the election just as much as it could win it.

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

George Bush already gave conservatives the way to win the white House, Camp out in Ohio, spend all your money on the East Coast ( New Hampshire,Virginia, North Carolina, Florida.

The only problem is, Arizona,Missouri, Montana,South Dakota and North Dakota , arent all that red any more. conceding the mid west could cost you the election just as much as it could win it.

State demographics have shifted since 2004. Virginia has moved from a swing state to blue state.

North Carolina’s population was the sixth-fastest growing in the United States from 2000 to 2010. Exit polling conducted by Edison Research in the 2012 election showed that non-natives supported President Obama over Mitt Romney by a margin of 51 percent to 48 percent, with more recent newcomers even more likely than longtime non-natives to vote for Mr. Obama.
source

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by Dhult

Having someone on the ticket that wins statewide races in the toss up states or having someone on the ticket in a blue state that has support statewide that can turn a blue state red.

Lack of enthusiasm and low turn out for the democrats. Virginia just had a significant republican win.

During the same time period you listed the Democrats are down to what 17 Governors? That is a significant decrees. 33 Republican Governors shows that the Republicans can carry Blue States. If they have one of those Republicans in a key state even in a VP position they have the ability to succeed.

Lack of enthusiasm is solely an off year issue.

And nominees have not swung their states in decades now, and even then, only in an era where less than 40 states were virtual locks, either red or blue.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

State demographics have shifted since 2004. Virginia has moved from a swing state to blue state.

If I were a Republican, I would think a 4 point gap in Virginia(150,000 votes) would be easier to overcome than a similar vote count lose in Iowa, and it is more electoral votes.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

If I were a Republican, I would think a 4 point gap in Virginia(150,000 votes) would be easier to overcome than a similar vote count lose in Iowa, and it is more electoral votes.

You'd be wrong not to add at least another 100,000 to prior results for Dems as new Demographic NOVA dominated Va has marched on since 11/2012.

[drishmael]

Originally Posted by Treehorn_II

"I think Silver said it best with "... if you want to argue that Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning the popular vote next year are 50 percent but that her Electoral College chances are more like 53 percent or 55 percent instead, go ahead — that’s probably about what the “blue wall” amounts to."

Yep — it's just a dramatic way of saying that in the past six elections, no Democratic candidate has lost the popular vote by more than 2.5%. Which doesn't sound like much, but it's actually somewhat remarkable by historical standards. Likewise, the worst Republican drubbing — Dole's '96 defeat — was by a margin of 8.5%. Bigger, certainly, but nothing compared to the kind of landslides that routinely occurred in every other decade of the 20th century. So maybe the "wall" metaphor is accurate in that the present political coalitions seem immovable and the Democratic base is a slightly higher barrier. At any rate, the present situation shouldn't be confused with 1948-76: those margins were ephemeral, these are entrenched.

Originally Posted by Dequindre

"It may not make it a red state, but it shows that [Pennsylvania] is turning more red than it is blue. Like I said, Republicans haven't hold majorities that large in the Commonwealth since the 1950's."

I can't speak to the size of the majority, but it's worth noting that apart from four years of divided control between 2007 and 2011, Republicans have maintained a firm grip on Pennsylvania's legislature since 1993. In fact, it doesn't appear that there's been a single period of unified Democratic control in the past 40 years (perhaps longer). It's the same dynamic you see with Michigan's legislature and New York's senate — Democratic voters are concentrated in a few dense urban districts (in this case, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh), making it extremely difficult for the party to hold a majority. Contrast Pennsylvania with Minnesota, where the Democratic Party has held full or split-control for all but two of the past 40 years. Here are side-by-side maps depicting the 2008 county-level presidential results in both states:



Red shading indicates a county in which McCain carried ≥ 60% of the vote. McCain actually performed better in Minnesota than Pennsylvania (losing by 10.2% vs. 10.3%), but as you can see, he didn't hit 60% in a single county. Navy blue indicates the same margin with respect to Obama. Together with the royal blue counties — won by Obama by < 60% — the combined margins of these areas accounted for 25% of Obama's statewide vote (not every county Obama carried is shaded, just the number needed to reach 25%). In the case of Minnesota, that entailed winning 42 counties spread across every region of the state. In Pennsylvania, just eight counties supplied a quarter of the Democratic vote, most of them nestled near its eastern and western borders. Those blue islands wield Pennsylvania's electoral votes, but the sea of crimson in between spans enough legislative districts to give Republicans a near-lock on the state capitol.

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by drishmael

I can't speak to the size of the majority, but it's worth noting that apart from four years of divided control between 2007 and 2011, Republicans have maintained a firm grip on Pennsylvania's legislature since 1993. In fact, it doesn't appear that there's been a single period of unified Democratic control in the past 40 years (perhaps longer). It's the same dynamic you see with Michigan's legislature and New York's senate — Democratic voters are concentrated in a few dense urban districts (in this case, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh), making it extremely difficult for the party to hold a majority. Contrast Pennsylvania with Minnesota, where the Democratic Party has held full or split-control for all but two of the past 40 years. Here are side-by-side maps depicting the 2008 county-level presidential results in both states:

Attachment 160850.

The way the legislature is comprised is local elections by district. There are more Republican districts than Democratic districts. But the presidency is determined by total vote in the state and there are generally more Democrats voting in presidential elections than Republicans.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by Bureaucat

It's top secret, sort of like Nixon's plan to end the Vietnam War in 1968.

In the end that worked out better than Obama's plan to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.