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.
North Carolina needs to be on this list. They've undergone a population boom and are a swing state.
North Carolina voted for Obama in '08.
North Carolina also voted for a Democrat for Governor, US Senator, and the Democrats continued its 100 year control of the NC General Assembly in 2008.
In 2012 the DNC held its convention in Charlotte, NC. Obama called NC the future of politics.
By 2015 NC had voted out the Democrats. The Governor is now from the GOP, the state General Assembly is controlled by the GOP with veto proof margin. And the most expensive US Senate race in US history, over $100M spent mostly by Democrats, resulted in the seat turning to the GOP.
North Carolina also voted for a Democrat for Governor, US Senator, and the Democrats continued its 100 year control of the NC General Assembly in 2008.
In 2012 the DNC held its convention in Charlotte, NC. Obama called NC the future of politics.
By 2015 NC had voted out the Democrats. The Governor is now from the GOP, the state General Assembly is controlled by the GOP with veto proof margin. And the most expensive US Senate race in US history, over $100M spent mostly by Democrats, resulted in the seat turning to the GOP.
This speaks for itself.
Yes I was there during the end of the Jim Hunt years (he served what? 24 years?) and part of Easley, who just rode in on Hunt. The Raleigh area was consistently showing up on "best place to live" lists and everywhere you looked another housing development was going up. They have a lot of electoral votes and I firmly believe Trump will take the state.
What your post ignores is that presidents are not kings and cannot dictate policy. They still need to convince Congress.
It also ignores the fact that even though President Obama had for most of his terms a hostile Congress, he still was able to make substantial changes. In areas from financial reform, health care reform, climate change, energy etc.
The fact that Mr. Obama said during his campaign that he was going to reform health care and did just that, means that we don't get the same "status quo."
You're giving him too much credit. The money to do what he did came from the jokers in Congress.
"If we only had the House." So, we gave them the House.
"If we only had the Senate." So, we gave them the Senate.
Then the come up with a crappola spending bill and the jerks pat themselves on the back.
Then they (you know the same ones with the collective 11 percent approval rating) had the unmitigated gall to say, (insert whining here), Donald Trump is going to cost us re-election if he's the Republican candidate," totally oblivious to the fact that we'd like to take "their seat" and hit them over the head with it.
If you really want to read a good book about these criminals we elect, read "Extortion: How Politicians Extract Your Money, Buy Votes, and Line Their Own Pockets" by Peter Schweizer.
In the last 4 years the Democrats have lost everything.
GOP controls
US Senate
US House by margins not seen by 99% of living
majority of Governorships
majority of state legislatures
More than 1000 DNC seats have been converted to GOP in the last 4 years. This is because the middle working class has abandoned the Democrats. They can't take it anymore. King Hillary is facing a landslide loss.
You keep thinking this election will be a repeat of 2014, just like 2012 was a repeat of 2010.
There's a clear statistical difference between the composition of Presidential election year voters and off-year election voters. Off-year election turnout is consistently smaller, older, whiter and more Republican than the Presidential year electorate.
For the past few cycles, the pattern has been -5% white in Presidential years, followed by +3 white in off-year elections. If you compare Presidential elections to Presidential elections and off-year to off-year, the white percentages of both are falling about 2% per election, with all of the loss coming from non-college whites (3% actually, with white college grads gaining 1% per election).
The Republican Party gets about 88% of its vote from N/H whites, while the Democrats get about 56% of their votes from N/H whites.
Both parties need to have diverse bases for long term success. Unless the Republicans increase their popularity with minority voters, they have to hope for higher turnout and a higher percentage from white voters at a time when white voters are losing total registration share. When you're swimming upstream against a demographic current, a landslide win is extremely improbable.
There's a clear statistical difference between the composition of Presidential election year voters and off-year election voters. Off-year election turnout is consistently smaller, older, whiter and more Republican than the Presidential year electorate.
This is the "demographic" controls the vote theory. Much like the "going to college turns you into a democrat" theory.
North Carolina proves this theory wrong however. In 2012 the state replaced the DEM governor with one from the GOP, and the state flipped to Romney.
This is the "demographic" controls the vote theory. Much like the "going to college turns you into a democrat" theory.
North Carolina proves this theory wrong however. In 2012 the state replaced the DEM governor with one from the GOP, and the state flipped to Romney.
Obama won North Carolina in 2008 49.70% to McCain's 49.38%. In other words, Obama won by a hair in 2008. In 2012, Romney got 92,000 more votes than Obama, which was hardly a blowout. North Carolina has moved from a solid Red State to more of a swing state in presidential elections.
Proof enough that King Hillary doesn't have a lock on Obama votes.
You do realize that 1972 was 44 years ago, right? A few things have changed since then.
You do realize that in both 1964 and 1972, there was a popular incumbent POTUS running against someone considered a radical fringe candidate, right?
Who'd be considered the radical fringe candidate in 2016?
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.
