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.
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 careful wording needed to get around the fact that a Democrat held the executive branch for 20 straight years (1933-1953) is just...
I don't see one candidate on the GOP side with the credentials or electability of Romney, never mind McCain. Rubio comes closest, but he's too green.
Donald Trump? Ted Cruz? Chris Christie? Another Bush? Hillary or Sanders would smash them in a general election. Those phony scandals and BS tags you keep parroting are good for riling up your base, but little else. "Bernie = Socialist" would be damning in 1955, not 2015.
The careful wording needed to get around the fact that a Democrat held the executive branch for 20 straight years (1933-1953) is just...
I don't see one candidate on the GOP side with the credentials or electability of Romney, never mind McCain. Rubio comes closest, but he's too green.
Donald Trump? Ted Cruz? Chris Christie? Another Bush? Hillary or Sanders would smash them in a general election. Those phony scandals and BS tags you keep parroting are good for riling up your base, but little else. "Bernie = Socialist" would be damning in 1955, not 2015.
Romney couldn't relate to regular Americans. Unfortunately the litmus test for president is "who I want to have a beer with". Obama is great at that level, McCain wasn't and Romney was stiff. He couldn't adapt to the pressure.
Everyone on the republican side is as qualified if not exceptionally more than Obama was in 08, that didn't seem to have any bearing on the electorate.
Hillary and sanders are busy trying to figure out who is the most socialist at this point. They are running left even faster than republicans are running right. In general polling "socialist" is still a very negative term in modern America, especially in purple states.
When did Obama's FBI investigation become a phony scandal? Maybe Obama turned into a republican and no one told me
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.
The democrats won the Virginia governorship in 2014 which was in a non-presidential year. The 2014 election saw the republicans sweep every other governorship.
In a article I read and cannot find the senate seat the dems needed to flip in which they lost the margin of defeat was narrowed to around 3% from 15% in the last cycle. This is mainly due to more left wing democrats moving into Northern Virginia. I wouldn't call this a win but more of holding on to what you have.
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.
Dems start electoral college with 240 votes, how do they loose?
Fallacy. They don't start with 240 votes. They start with 0.
Middle Class has Abandoned DNC. This is what will result.
Where did this map come from? I can't take anything serious that shows Connecticut as a red state!
Connecticut? Seriously? We've had a Democratic super majority in our state for so long I can't remember a time when the Dems weren't in power. Yes we have had Republican Governor's but they don't accomplish much given our legislature can override a veto pretty easily.
Going even further, the wealthy Republicans in Fairfield County aren't enough votes. Just look at Linda McMahon who mounted TWO insanely expensive, organized but failed campaigns.
I'd eat a shoe if my state ever voted for a Republican President.
Where did this map come from? I can't take anything serious that shows Connecticut as a red state!
Connecticut? Seriously? We've had a Democratic super majority in our state for so long I can't remember a time when the Dems weren't in power. Yes we have had Republican Governor's but they don't accomplish much given our legislature can override a veto pretty easily.
Going even further, the wealthy Republicans in Fairfield County aren't enough votes. Just look at Linda McMahon who mounted TWO insanely expensive, organized but failed campaigns.
I'd eat a shoe if my state ever voted for a Republican President.
Dems start electoral college with 240 votes, how do they loose?
Fallacy. They don't start with 240 votes. They start with 0.
Middle Class has Abandoned DNC. This is what will result.
If you think Trump can win Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada, etc., you're in for an unpleasant surprise. Recent polling has Bernie Sanders beating only one Republican candidate in a head-to-head match-up. I'll give you one guess who that is.
Dems start electoral college with 240 votes, how do they loose?
Fallacy. They don't start with 240 votes. They start with 0.
Middle Class has Abandoned DNC. This is what will result.
And I thought Dick Morris was delusional when he predicted a Romney landslide.
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.
