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.
Republicans were certain that 2010 telegraphed a GOP romp to the White House in 2012. They were wrong, for the precise reason you cite above. And they're bound and determined to learn absolutely nothing from that failure in logic.
Of course, it's hilarious to see the fact that THE DEMOCRAT MARK WARNER WON IN A REPUBLICAN WAVE YEAR touted as ominous for Democrats! And the usual suspects can't be bothered to address the fact that an unabashed liberal, Terry McAuliffe, is now the Governor of Virginia, and he won that office in a year in which his party controlled the White House - something no other candidate for Virginia Governor had been able to do since 1973. Or that Democrats hold all five statewide offices in Virginia (Both U.S. Senators, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General).
They're also in deep denial about how useful it will be for likely-nominee Clinton to have a longtime Clinton ally, McAuliffe (currently with a 55% approval rating), holding the governorship and able to marshal the resources of the office on her behalf in the general election.
The issue is not using a known statistical trend when it is indeed a trend. This has happened even with "St." Ronnie. it's not just Democrats but they are far less likely to vote in midterm elections.
I am anti Hillary, but I believe she'll get the needed electoral votes to win. Most of the larger states will vote Democrat due to their large minority populations wanting gov't handouts. The only large state that probably won't vote for her is Texas. All those little states that Republicans win don't add up to much.
I am anti Hillary, but I believe she'll get the needed electoral votes to win. Most of the larger states will vote Democrat due to their large minority populations wanting gov't handouts. The only large state that probably won't vote for her is Texas. All those little states that Republicans win don't add up to much.
Or because minorities feel the Republicans are at worst racist or at best full of condescending types who think of them as just welfare dependents.
Both California and New York State would vote Democrat even they didn't have a large minority population; plenty of whites including educated whites vote Democratic, maybe they like handouts too? Or just can't stand Republicans? Or both?
I'd guess few minorities of any income would feel comfortable with the idea of a Trump presidency.
The idea that there's a large segment of Democrats who can't stand Hillary Clinton and switch to Trump if Clinton wins is silly. For example, in Ohio 77% of Democrats think favorably of both Sanders and Clinton.
Republicans were certain that 2010 telegraphed a GOP romp to the White House in 2012. They were wrong, for the precise reason you cite above. And they're bound and determined to learn absolutely nothing from that failure in logic.
Of course, it's hilarious to see the fact that THE DEMOCRAT MARK WARNER WON IN A REPUBLICAN WAVE YEAR touted as ominous for Democrats! And the usual suspects can't be bothered to address the fact that an unabashed liberal, Terry McAuliffe, is now the Governor of Virginia, and he won that office in a year in which his party controlled the White House - something no other candidate for Virginia Governor had been able to do since 1973. Or that Democrats hold all five statewide offices in Virginia (Both U.S. Senators, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General).
They're also in deep denial about how useful it will be for likely-nominee Clinton to have a longtime Clinton ally, McAuliffe (currently with a 55% approval rating), holding the governorship and able to marshal the resources of the office on her behalf in the general election.
The electoral map is getting friendlier for Democratic presidential candidates while Republicans are trotting out an especially poor crop of potential nominees. Clinton's map looks a lot like Obama's. Can one of Rubio/Trump/Cruz dislodge Ohio or Pennsylvania (not to mention Virginia and Florida). I don't think any of them can. I think that Trump and Cruz would probably lose North Carolina, Indiana, and maybe even Iowa. Rubio may turn Florida red, but I don't think he stands a chance in Ohio or Pennsylvania against Clinton. Without one of them, the Republicans have to take Virginia & North Carolina, Indiana, and all of the non-coastal western states.
Rubio is shaky under pressure, and I don't think swing voters will buy him as a commander-in-chief or as a good President in crisis. Trump and Cruz would have us looking closer to a Johnson-Goldwater map than anything else.
The electoral map is getting friendlier for Democratic presidential candidates while Republicans are trotting out an especially poor crop of potential nominees. Clinton's map looks a lot like Obama's. Can one of Rubio/Trump/Cruz dislodge Ohio or Pennsylvania (not to mention Virginia and Florida). I don't think any of them can. I think that Trump and Cruz would probably lose North Carolina, Indiana, and maybe even Iowa. Rubio may turn Florida red, but I don't think he stands a chance in Ohio or Pennsylvania against Clinton. Without one of them, the Republicans have to take Virginia & North Carolina, Indiana, and all of the non-coastal western states.
Rubio is shaky under pressure, and I don't think swing voters will buy him as a commander-in-chief or as a good President in crisis. Trump and Cruz would have us looking closer to a Johnson-Goldwater map than anything else.
I don't think it will be a Goldwater map, likely a combo of Humphrey and Wallace vs Nixon except flipped colors.
Or because minorities feel the Republicans are at worst racist or at best full of condescending types who think of them as just welfare dependents.
Both California and New York State would vote Democrat even they didn't have a large minority population; plenty of whites including educated whites vote Democratic, maybe they like handouts too? Or just can't stand Republicans? Or both?
I'd guess few minorities of any income would feel comfortable with the idea of a Trump presidency.
I guess I must rate in order to get a reply from a moderator!
I live in Northern Virginia. Many people here actually are more fiscally conservative than you would think especially when it comes to local government but extremely socially liberal. As long as the Republicans keep opposing gay marriage and abortion rights, the region and the state along with it will keep getting bluer.
The idea that there's a large segment of Democrats who can't stand Hillary Clinton and switch to Trump if Clinton wins is silly. For example, in Ohio 77% of Democrats think favorably of both Sanders and Clinton.
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.
it's not just Democrats but they are far less likely to vote in midterm elections.