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.
The demographics of the cities and states with the most electoral votes just doesn't add up for it to happen. Not any time soon anyways. Lol
The Republicans took the governorships in the ultraliberal states of Massachusetts and Maryland just last fall. The Democrats have had success in conservative states as well in recent years.
Assuming that any state is in the bag for any political party in an election so far down the line is a mistake.
If what you said is true, why should either side bother with the expense of campaign ads and trips, they could debate by correspondence and publish it in the newspaper if they insisted on the exercise.
The Republicans took the governorships in the ultraliberal states of Massachusetts and Maryland just last fall. The Democrats have had success in conservative states as well in recent years.
Assuming that any state is in the bag for any political party in an election so far down the line is a mistake.
If what you said is true, why should either side bother with the expense of campaign ads and trips, they could debate by correspondence and publish it in the newspaper if they insisted on the exercise.
This is a great question. A lot of money could be saved.
39 states plus DC have gone the same way 7 straight times. The BW plus Va and NM, which have shifted blue, start Dems off within one single swing state of 270. Simply put, GOP to eek out 270 must run the table on 10 swing states..an incredible long shot.
Demographic changes have changed electoral politics, in the sole national race we vote in.
BTW, Both parties run largely to avoid undertickets losing bigger for them. Undertickets, as it is, win more often close races, when dragged up by POTUS winner.
so in other words you all have already given the 2016 presidential election to the democrat without knowing who it is, and who the republican nominee is, and what the mood of the public will be in 2016 around election time. good job people, we can now eliminate the 2016 general election for president and just concentrate on the rest of the elections.
We've become a remarkably predictable nation, with 40 of 51 states (and DC) with electoral votes being consistent 7 straight times.
This is no different than realizing Clay Kershaw will win a disproportionate % of Cy Young awards, or UConn's women basketball will win a disproportionate % of national titles.
39 states plus DC have gone the same way 7 straight times. The BW plus Va and NM, which have shifted blue, start Dems off within one single swing state of 270. Simply put, GOP to eek out 270 must run the table on 10 swing states..an incredible long shot.
Demographic changes have changed electoral politics, in the sole national race we vote in.
BTW, Both parties run largely to avoid undertickets losing bigger for them. Undertickets, as it is, win more often close races, when dragged up by POTUS winner.
You should read up on Nate's recent work on the subject.
I did, and it is interesting, but he is hardly viewing the likelihood of change as huge (he is viewing it as somewhat possible).. Add in, the BW states have widened their margins in recent years, and we know HC will win a higher % of women than Obama did, and that makes cracking any BW state very difficult. (Notice: I am not discounting a net reduction in BW margins, but since all but Maine are winner take all states, winning by 3% or 9% gets the same precious electoral votes).
Now if the GOP took moderate positions to win over single women and Latinos that could change things.
Usually whoever wins Ohio and Florida won the presidency in the last 5 elections.
Obama won both in 2012 by a margin of less than 1% in Florida and less than 3% in Ohio and he was the incumbent President with all the advantages of money and no primary challenge.
To say Democrats have the WH a lock for 2016 with Hillary is clueless...........whoever wins Ohio and Florida is going to be our next president.
You should read up on Nate's recent work on the subject.
Nah, he's wrong. At this point anyways.
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.
