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.
I think Trump will do extremely well with minority voters, particularly African Americans. African Americans in states like CA and TX have been absolutely decimated by NAFTA with the loss of high paying manufacturing jobs and illegal immigrants changing and transforming their neighborhoods, Compton and Inglewood come to mind.
Trump is not a typical Republican, he has immense populist appeal and I think he will easily garner about 40-45% of the Black vote.
CA and TX have not been decimated by NAFTA, try the midwest. Ohio has lost about 1 million light to medium manufacturing jobs. The other midwest states about the same.
Trump isn't your normal candidate but his speech about deporting 11 million Mexicans has painted him as a racist. If he would have taken a different tack in favor of fines or offering a pathway to legalization he would have put the democrats on their heals. Instead he threw red meat out to the loonies and they went wild.
True, it should have ended in 2009. Thankfully the Iraq war has ended, but we really do not need to be in Afghanistan for any reason. Though right now we only have a small number of troops there.
Someone needs to inform the military that the war is over.
"The way the legislature is comprised is local elections by district. There are more Republican districts than Democratic districts."
Yes, but why? How is it that the GOP maintains consistent legislative control of a state no Republican has carried in a presidential election since 1988? Is there rampant split-ticket voting? And if Democrats outnumber Republicans in the state, why are there fewer Democratic-leaning legislative districts? Isn't that something the Pennsylvania Democratic Party should look to address — like maybe 20 or 30 years ago?
What I'm getting at — and forgive me if my previous post was a bit convoluted — is that Pennsylvania has a natural Republican gerrymander owing to the geographical concentration of its Democratic voters. Suppose the Democratic Party gains full control of Pennsylvania's redistricting process (as I understand it, this is what the judicial victories last week portend) and has carte blanche to draw the districts however it pleases. In order to fashion itself a legislative majority, its crucial aim must be to blend Democratic precincts with those populated by swing voters and Republicans. With a finite number of voters, it must resist needlessly concentrating its supporters in districts that are already heavily Democratic. The problem for Pennsylvania Democrats is that in many cases, the swing voters/Republicans are nowhere near the Democratic precincts. With respect to Philadelphia, for example, how would one avoid creating a bunch of 70, 80 and 90 percent Democratic districts? As a widely circulated conspiratorial chain email noted following the 2012 election, there were some precincts in Philadelphia in which Mitt Romney's vote total was at or around zero. Balancing those areas out would entail creating extremely sprawling districts (not many swing areas in Delaware County, either), which, given the city's population density, would likely have to look something like snakes or noodles.
Point being, the geography imposes significant political constraints.
Yes, but why? How is it that the GOP maintains consistent legislative control of a state no Republican has carried in a presidential election since 1988? Is there rampant split-ticket voting? And if Democrats outnumber Republicans in the state, why are there fewer Democratic-leaning legislative districts? Isn't that something the Pennsylvania Democratic Party should look to address — like maybe 20 or 30 years ago?
What I'm getting at — and forgive me if my previous post was a bit convoluted — is that Pennsylvania has a natural Republican gerrymander owing to the geographical concentration of its Democratic voters. Suppose the Democratic Party gains full control of Pennsylvania's redistricting process (as I understand it, this is what the judicial victories last week portend) and has carte blanche to draw the districts however it pleases. In order to fashion itself a legislative majority, its crucial aim must be to blend Democratic precincts with those populated by swing voters and Republicans. With a finite number of voters, it must resist needlessly concentrating its supporters in districts that are already heavily Democratic. The problem for Pennsylvania Democrats is that in many cases, the swing voters/Republicans are nowhere near the Democratic precincts. With respect to Philadelphia, for example, how would one avoid creating a bunch of 70, 80 and 90 percent Democratic districts? As a widely circulated conspiratorial chain email noted following the 2012 election, there were some precincts in Philadelphia in which Mitt Romney's vote total was at or around zero. Balancing those areas out would entail creating extremely sprawling districts (not many swing areas in Delaware County, either), which, given the city's population density, would likely have to look something like snakes or noodles.
Point being, the geography imposes significant political constraints.
Gerrymandering has been referred to the practice of "packing and cracking"; "packing" as many of your opponents supporters in to as few districts as possible while "cracking" or spreading your own supporters over more districts to control a legislative body. Since Democrats tend to settle in dense urban areas while a Republicans tend to be rural based, the base of the parties own living choices effectively gerrymander before a politician does anything. Republican controlled gerrymandering only widens the political advantage that naturally occurs. There's any number of urban congressional districts that's over 90% Democratic by registration. By comparison it's hard to find a district that's 70% Republican. Those districts are the ones where after losing a Presidential election, Republican zealots invariably will cite a precinct where not a single R vote was cast as prima facie evidence of voting fraud while conveniently omitting that the registration in that precinct may be 99-100% Democrat. In off-year elections the turnout of those urban districts can be very low because at least at the Congressional level they aren't competitive, but in POTUS elections they turn out in force causing very different results than in off-year elections.
Briefly, it talks of how, after losing to President Obama in 2012, the Republican National Committee hired some group to do surveys and such and discover what went wrong, and how to fix it for the next Presidential election.
According to the article, the committee made this policy recommendation:
“We must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform. If we do not, our Party’s appeal will continue to shrink to its core constituencies.”
The thrust of the opinion article (for such it is) is that, to date, those running for the Republican nomination have done a very poor job in this regard. Mr. Romney polled very poorly among Hispanics, and it is doubtful, to date, that the 2016 candidate will do any better, if not worse.
Now back to my ? on day 5, how do republicans win?
again your assumption is that the democrat candidate, regardless of who it is, automatically starts with 240 electoral votes, and that just isnt the case. do you really think the democrats can run anyone and win? sorry not going to happen.
you cannot take things like this for granted as it will come back and bite you. for instance while california might be safely democrat, this election, right now, new york and PA are not, depending on who the republican nominee is. so your premise is a false on, thus your question is essentially unanswerable.
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.
None of that applies to the election of a President. If it did, Romney would have won 2012. The 2010 was the strongest reaction to Barack Obama of all that followed, and 2014 was a reaction against his second win.
Exactly the same occurred in reverse with GW Bush in the 2004 election. The 2000 tossup was abnormally close and a true aberration in modern American political history.
The numbers remain solidly in the Democrat's favor. I tend to think Trump is the only candidate who could change that, but he's a bet on a very wild card for either party.
again your assumption is that the democrat candidate, regardless of who it is, automatically starts with 240 electoral votes, and that just isnt the case. do you really think the democrats can run anyone and win? sorry not going to happen.
you cannot take things like this for granted as it will come back and bite you. for instance while california might be safely democrat, this election, right now, new york and PA are not, depending on who the republican nominee is. so your premise is a false on, thus your question is essentially unanswerable.
are you out in Colorado smoking some Rocky Mountain high?
NY and PA going republican.
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.
My bad, we'll just have to shelve that with his other lies.
