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 studied extensively why Romney lost. They concluded that he did not broaden his appeal to bring in minority voters in a changing demographic is why, plain and simple. Trump will change that.
That study and/or the question the Republicans are struggling to answer is "whether it is the pizza box that needs redesign or the pizza."
The GOP has come to realize I think (or should), their party platform message is resonating with fewer and fewer Americans as the demographics of America are changing.
Trump is the "abandon ship" life boat for conservatives, a peculiar subset of them anyway...
And there is a minor detail that his campaign machinery was flawed and completely broke down before the election. Their internal polling was also telling them the wrong things. i.e. He was a horrible candidate.
Excuses, excuses. Keep telling yourself that. No matter how good his organization, he could not overcome the demographics and the tarnished reputation of Republicans in the blue state majority. Things have only worsened since then.
Excuses, excuses. Keep telling yourself that. No matter how good his organization, he could not overcome the demographics and the tarnished reputation of Republicans in the blue state majority. Things have only worsened since then.
Demographics are irrelevant. Romney lost because he was a bad candidate.
Then Kerry should have won and yet he didn't. Candidates matter more. Have a bad one (e.g. Milquetoast Mitt) and you lose regardless of demographics.
Bush did well enough with minorities to squeak out a victory:
11% AA vote
44% Latino vote
43% Asian vote
He also did well with women voters, capturing 48% of their vote. Danny Devito has a better chance of winning the slam dunk contest than Trump does hitting those numbers.
Note: Minorities comprised a smaller share of the electorate in 2004--since then they have shown higher shares of eligible voters, higher turnout rates, and higher Democratic margins in the two most recent elections. For whites, on the other hand, post-2004 elections showed smaller shares of eligible voters and lower turnout.
Here's the bad news for the GOP though: Even if White turnout returned to 2004 levels, Republicans would still be projected to lose the 2016 election. That's how crucial minorities are these days.
Bush's margin of victory in the popular vote was the smallest ever for a reelected incumbent president, so you could see even in 2004 that America's changing demographics were starting to weigh on the GOP. Keep in the mind that his approval rating hovered around 50% for all of 2004--his popularity didn't fully nosedive until 2005. Theoretically, Bush should have won comfortably. Instead, he needed Florida again to eek out the win.
Last edited by RaymondChandlerLives; 03-16-2016 at 02:10 PM..
I refuse to believe that people vote based on their age, color, sex, etc. People aren't so simple.
And that is why you will be one miserable lady on Election night.
-Latinos prefer Democrats by a 2-1 margin these days, most likely 4-1 if Trump is the nominee.
-White men prefer Republicans by a significant margin--you have to go all the way back to Landslide Lyndon to find a Democrat who captured the majority of their votes.
-Blacks overwhelmingly vote Democrat.
-Republicans haven't won the majority of women voters since 1988. That's six straight elections.
These are long-standing trends that will continue into 2016 with 99.9% certainty, and they overwhelmingly favor the Democrats.
And that is why you will be one miserable lady on Election night.
-Latinos prefer Democrats by a 2-1 margin these days, most likely 4-1 if Trump is the nominee.
-White men prefer Republicans by a significant margin--you have to go all the way back to Landslide Lyndon to find a Democrat who captured the majority of their votes.
-Blacks overwhelmingly vote Democrat.
-Republicans haven't won the majority of women voters since 1988. That's six straight elections.
These are long-standing trends that will continue into 2016 with 99.9% certainty, and they overwhelmingly favor the Democrats.
I've never been one to say anything has certainty when it comes to politics. I was certain the GOP wouldn't be foolish enough to nominate Romney because he was the only single candidate who couldn't effectively campaign against Obama on Obamacare and I was wrong. So, who knows what will happen? With Trump, I've been wrong all along as Rubio was my man (and I was sure he would go all the way) and I've learned to not even try to predict anything with him. Plus, there's the lack of enthusiasm for Clinton going into this election. Again, it's not all about demographics. A bad candidate is a bad candidate is a bad candidate no matter what demographics 'normally' do. To be fair, it's starting to shape up to be an election of flawed vs. flawed candidate.
Bush did well enough with minorities to squeak out a victory:
11% AA vote
44% Latino vote
43% Asian vote
You are making a causation fallacy.
The AA vote is almost all in states, that will vote Red. Latino's don't block vote. The Asian vote isn't big enough to flip a state from red to blue.
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.
