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 11-07-2015, 09:38 PM
 
18,958 posts, read 7,375,095 times
Reputation: 8083

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dhult View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-07-2015, 09:41 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
23,352 posts, read 11,566,295 times
Reputation: 4322
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2015, 09:48 PM
 
18,958 posts, read 7,375,095 times
Reputation: 8083
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
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.

Last edited by BobNJ1960; 11-07-2015 at 09:59 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2015, 02:53 AM
 
Location: MPLS
752 posts, read 449,841 times
Reputation: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treehorn_II View Post
"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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dequindre View Post
"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:

Dems start electoral college with 240 votes, how do they loose?-pa08-25.0-mn08-24.9-.png

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.

Last edited by drishmael; 11-08-2015 at 03:14 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2015, 05:10 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,718 posts, read 11,580,729 times
Reputation: 5613
Quote:
Originally Posted by drishmael View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2015, 05:35 AM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,373 posts, read 16,673,058 times
Reputation: 8902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treehorn_II View Post
This is a huge problem for the GOP, and is never honestly answered by the morons who listen to talk radio.
I listen to Rush Limbaugh (not every day). I'm not a moron, thank you. I think I'm a lot smarter than most liberals posting on this forum. How do I know that? Because of the moronic, idiotic, and nonsensical horse manure that they post here day in and day out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2015, 06:09 AM
 
79,556 posts, read 33,727,711 times
Reputation: 15961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bureaucat View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2015, 06:44 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,718 posts, read 11,580,729 times
Reputation: 5613
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
I listen to Rush Limbaugh (not every day). I'm not a moron, thank you. I think I'm a lot smarter than most liberals posting on this forum. How do I know that? Because of the moronic, idiotic, and nonsensical horse manure that they post here day in and day out.
I will not comment on your innate intelligence, as I have no information to base that judgment. However, if you are getting you information from Rush Limbaugh you are being fed agenda driven propaganda that often is not barely true and when it is true it is true with heavy caveats. An example would be the often cited claim that, "94 million Americans are not employed" -- which makes it seem as there is a much bigger unemployment problem than the official statistics.

However, when one looks at who those 94 million people are, we see they are retirees, children over 16 who are in school, stay at home parents, playboys living on yachts, etc. In other words, it's a true statistic that suggests a conclusion that isn't true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2015, 06:58 AM
 
7,175 posts, read 2,538,792 times
Reputation: 3626
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
In the end that worked out better than Obama's plan to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nope. More Americans died in Vietnam under Nixon than under LBJ. His real secret plan was having Anna Chenault torpedo the 1968 peace talks to help him get elected. He gave us 4 more years of war with the same result that could have been achieved in 1968. When more Americans are killed in Iraq (which should never have been invaded by Dubya) and Afghanistan under Obama than under Bush, you might have a point. Until then, not so much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2015, 07:10 AM
 
3,482 posts, read 5,116,712 times
Reputation: 1544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rico Valencia View Post
I think Trump will do extremely well with minority voters, particularly African Americans. African Americans in states like CA and TX have been absolutely decimated by NAFTA with the loss of high paying manufacturing jobs and illegal immigrants changing and transforming their neighborhoods, Compton and Inglewood come to mind.

Trump is not a typical Republican, he has immense populist appeal and I think he will easily garner about 40-45% of the Black vote.
CA and TX have not been decimated by NAFTA, try the midwest. Ohio has lost about 1 million light to medium manufacturing jobs. The other midwest states about the same.

Trump isn't your normal candidate but his speech about deporting 11 million Mexicans has painted him as a racist. If he would have taken a different tack in favor of fines or offering a pathway to legalization he would have put the democrats on their heals. Instead he threw red meat out to the loonies and they went wild.
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

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 07:58 AM.

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