Dems start electoral college with 240 votes, how do they loose? (Reagan, FBI)
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.
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.
MUST win Ohio, Florida and Virginia and North Carolina, then either get Colorado or Nevada to eeke out a victory.
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.
Even places like California takes turns between Republican and Democrat Governors. All it takes is a popular Republican Governor in a blue state on the ticket with a a decent electoral vote to swing the other way.
Ohio, Virginia, Colorado and Nevada might as well be Blue States now. They're very young and ethnically diverse, both of those tend to be liberal. The only way a Democrat would lose in '16 is from low voter turnout and unenthusiasm.
that chart makes a lot of assumptions about 2016, who the candidates are, and the mood of the electorate at the time of the general election. granted its a starting point for where the candidates need to throw most of their time and money at, but even states like california and new york can turn red if the right republican comes along.
again though, this is like bench racing car vs car, its all talk right now and essentially meaningless.
This is a huge problem for the GOP, and is never honestly answered by the morons who listen to talk radio. Quite simply, the GOP MUST win Ohio, Florida and Virginia and North Carolina, then either get Colorado or Nevada to eeke out a victory. Of these 6 states, they have gone 1 for 12 in the past two elections - which is not good. Additionally, the Demographics of Florida and Nevada are making them "lean Democrat" states, and doubling down on an unelectable "Principled Conservative" will not carry the day. It's just math. The map looks like this.....
Only thinking about the last two elections is short sighted. The presidential election is more about the person running than the party running. Obama resonated with people and the republicans put up two reality of weak candidates. Jesus running as a republican in 08 would have lost.
The real question is Hilary able to energize the base and get out the vote better than Obama. She does worse with independents as Obama did so for her to win those purple states she needs to get out the vote, period. Frankly, she is not very energizing and people are not very excited about her. She suffers the same thing all 3 term reelections suffer from, over exposure and America wanting something different.
Democrats haven't had a 3 consecutive full terms with two elected individuals since the mid 1850's and republicans were just able to do it once with Reagan and the bush senior.
The republican field is actually full of very electable candidates, they are much better than the mediocrity that was pushed in 08 and 12. "Outsiders" are big right now and the republicans have two serious contenders on that front, plus they have two people that are young with latin heritage that both speak very well. You also have Christi who does great on stage and infront of people, he is very likeable. Then you have jeb who is on his last breath, thankfully and bunch of others who make no difference. Generally the field is young, vibrant and diverse.
On the democrat side you have only two old white people, one is currently being criminally investigated by obama's FBI while the other is in his mid 70's and describes himself as a socialist, not to mention it sounds like he is talking under water whenever he speaks. Not to mention both candidates want to run on gun control (Hillary even mentioning mass confiscation) which isn't supported in those purple states at all.
The republican field is actually full of very electable candidates, they are much better than the mediocrity that was pushed in 08 and 12. "Outsiders" are big right now and the republicans have two serious contenders on that front, plus they have two people that are young with latin heritage that both speak very well. You also have Christi who does great on stage and infront of people, he is very likeable. Then you have jeb who is on his last breath, thankfully and bunch of others who make no difference. Generally the field is young, vibrant and diverse.
The nature of the field for the establishment is irrelevant. There is no difference between Rubio, Kasich, or Fiorina. They will all fill their cabinets with the same neocons and disastrous policies that plagued the two Bush administrations before them. Romney was going to do the exact same thing. All these advisors are foaming at the mouth to jump back in behind the scenes again and pull some strings. More meddling and escalation, and more debt.
The nature of the field for the establishment is irrelevant. There is no difference between Rubio, Kasich, or Fiorina. They will all fill their cabinets with the same neocons and disastrous policies that plagued the two Bush administrations before them. Romney was going to do the exact same thing. All these advisors are foaming at the mouth to jump back in behind the scenes again and pull some strings. More meddling and escalation, and more debt.
It seems you are worried about these "advisors" while the same "advisor" for Obama (Hillary) was pulling the string, according to your view of the role of "advisors" while Obama attacked almost twice as many countries as Bush and while more soldiers died compared to when bush was president.
It seems the person with the most Warhawk tendencies is running for the democrat nomination, not the republican.
Please, history and common sense do not apply to 2016. Mr. Trump simply does not fit any traditional mold and hence past experience goes out of the window. I will go out on the limb and say it will be 538-0 EV, Mr. Trump over Clinton. #HistoryThis #Winning #GOPDelusion2016
Mick
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.
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. 
